This article is part 3 of LoonWatch’s Understanding Jihad Series. Please read my “disclaimer”, which explains my intentions behind writing this article: The Understanding Jihad Series: Is Islam More Likely Than Other Religions to Encourage Violence?
As we noted in an earlier article:
A recent Pew Research poll found that almost half of U.S. adults think that the Islamic religion is more likely to encourage violence than other religions, a figure that has almost doubled since 2002. A clear majority of conservative Republicans (66%), white Evangelicals (60%), and Tea Baggers (67%) believe Islam is more violent than other religions, with a plurality of whites (44%) and older folks (42-46%) also thinking this. (Of note is that blacks, Hispanics, and liberal Democrats are significantly less bigoted towards Islam.) The idea that Islam is more violent than other religions–held most strongly by old white conservatives–is a key pillar to the edifice of Islamophobia.
Prof. Philip Jenkins writes:
In the minds of ordinary Christians – and Jews – the Koran teaches savagery and warfare, while the Bible offers a message of love, forgiveness, and charity.
Worse, the Quran is said to be a book of terrorism. It was in this vein that Bill O’Reilly invoked an analogy between the Quran and terrorism and Mein Kampf and Nazism. It must be the Quran that compels these Islamic radicals to engage in suicide bombing and terrorism.
Prof. Jenkins responds:
In fact, the Bible overflows with “texts of terror,” to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery.
In part 1 of LoonWatch’s Understanding Jihad Series, we traced the violence of the Bible to the Jewish prophet Moses, who submitted heathen nations to what can only be described as genocide. In part 2, we moved on to Moses’ divinely ordained successor, Joshua, who was arguably the most violent prophet in history. But the holy killing did not stop there.
The Warrior Tribe
After the death of Joshua, the Israelites wondered who would carry on the God-sanctioned genocide and conquest of the promised land. They did not have to wait long for the answer. God passed down the sword of the faith to the tribe of Judah:
Judges 1:1 After the death of Joshua, the Israelites asked the LORD, “Who will be the first to go up and fight for us against the Canaanites?”
1:2 The LORD answered, “Judah, for I have given them victory over the land.”
Judah heeded this call and continued the holy genocide against the unbelievers, culminating in the brutal conquest of Jerusalem:
1:8 The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem also and took it. They put the city to the sword and set it on fire.
From there, the tribe of Judah vanquished the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills (1:9), Hebron, the Sheshai, Ahiman, Talmai (1:10), and Debir (1:11). They destroyed Zephath:
1:17 [Judah] attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they utterly destroyed the city. Therefore it was called Hormah [Hormah means Destruction.]
Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron (1:18) fell to the Israelite nation, for “the Lord was with the men of Judah.” (1:19)
Judge, Jury, and Executioner
After the massacre of most of the inhabitants of Canaan, the God of the Bible was concerned with ensuring that Israel remain warlike:
3:1 These are the nations the Lord left to test all those Israelites who had not experienced any of the wars in Canaan
3:2 It was only in order that the generations of the people of Israel might know war, to teach war to those who had not known it before.
The sword was then wielded by the judges of Israel, first with Othniel, then Ehud, then Shamgar, then Barak, then Gideon, then Jephthah, and then Samson. Each of these judges of God was involved in religiously motivated massacres. The Bible recounts the hundreds of thousands of people they collectively slaughtered. From the first Israelite judge:
3:10 The Spirit of the Lord came upon him, so that he became Israel’s judge and went to war.
To the last of them:
1 Samuel 7:11 The men of Israel chased the Philistines from Mizpah to a place below Beth-car, slaughtering them all along the way.
Samson the Suicide Bomber Glorified in the Bible
One of the Israelite judges is worthy of special mention: the Jewish prophet Samson. According to the Bible, Samson was responsible for killing thousands of Philistines (the indigenous population of southern Canaan). Eventually, the Philistines successfully used a ruse to capture Samson, who was then taken to a temple where he was to be given as a sacrifice to one of the Philistine gods. Instead, Samson leaned against the pillars of the temple, and brought the temple down, killing himself along with 3,000 men and women:
Judges 16:26 Samson said to the young man who held him by the hand, “Let me feel the pillars on which the house rests, that I may lean against them.”
16:27 Now the house was full of men and women. All the lords of the Philistines were there, and on the roof there were about 3,000 men and women, who looked on while Samson entertained.
16:28 Then Samson prayed to the Lord, “O Sovereign Lord, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes.”
16:29 Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other,
16:30 Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.
Today, Samson is glorified as a hero by Israelis. Far from being a dead letter, Samson’s deed has become part of Israel’s state policy. The Samson Option is a doctrine adopted by the state of Israel, which states that should Israel’s existence ever be threatened, it will release a nuclear holocaust upon its enemies and other targets as well. As Israeli military historian Prof. Martin van Creveld famously put it (as reproduced on p.119 of David Hirst’s The Gun and The Olive Branch):
We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them as targets in all directions…We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under.
Unfortunately, the temple Samson destroyed has now become entire countries or even the entire world.
David: Giant Slayer and Baby Killer
The militant sword of Israel was then passed from the judges to holy kings. The first king of the United Kingdom of Israel was Saul. His story is especially interesting, and one which we will return to. We will however focus now on David, who at that time was Saul’s appointed generalissimo. The Israelite ladies fawned over David, not only because he killed the Philistine Goliath but also because he massacred “tens of thousands”:
1 Samuel 18:6 When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines and lutes.
18:7 As they danced, they sang: “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.”
It should be noted that by the end of David’s death, he ended up killing not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands. In any case, King Saul became jealous over the fact that David was credited with more kills than he was:
18:8 Saul was very angry; this refrain galled him. “They have credited David with tens of thousands,” he thought, “but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom?”
18:9 And from that time on Saul kept a jealous eye on David.
But then the king’s daughter fell in love with David. It seems that David was interested in this proposal but thought he was too poor to offer an adequate dowry:
18:23 David said, “Do you think it is a small matter to become the king’s son-in-law? I’m only a poor man and little known.”
King Saul reassured David that he accepted American Express penile foreskins:
18:25 Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’”
David was unfazed by this interesting request and brought back double the number of requested foreskins:
18:27 David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.
However, King Saul’s jealousy continued to grow and he unsuccessfully tried to kill his son-in-law. David found refuge in Ziklag (Philistine territory!) and raided other cities to stay financially afloat. Typical Biblical cruelty was added to these ghazwas raids:
27:8 Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites…
27:9 Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes. Then he returned to Achish.
27:10 When Achish asked, “Where did you go raiding today?” David would say, “Against the Negev of Judah” or “Against the Negev of Jerahmeel” or “Against the Negev of the Kenites.”
27:11 He did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, “They might inform on us and say, ‘This is what David did.’” And such was his practice as long as he lived in Philistine territory.
David massacred the Amalekites—men, women, and children:
30:17 David and his men rushed in among them and slaughtered them throughout that night and the entire next day until evening. None of the Amalekites escaped except 400 young men who fled on camels.
Eventually David became king of Israel and continued his string of conquests, subjugating heathens to Israelite rule:
2 Samuel 12:31 He also made slaves of the people of Rabbah and forced them to labor with saws, iron picks, and iron axes, and to work in the brick kilns. That is how he dealt with the people of all the Ammonite towns.
It should be noted that David’s slaughter of the Philistines was sanctioned by God:
1 Samuel 23:2 David inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I go and smite these Philistines?” And the LORD said unto David, “Go, and smite the Philistines…!”
God promised David:
23:4 “I am going to give the Philistines into your hand.”
As well as:
2 Samuel 5:19 So David inquired of the Lord, “Shall I go and attack the Philistines? Will you hand them over to me?” The Lord answered him, “Yes, go! For I will surely hand the Philistines over to you.”
And David did what God commanded him to do:
5:25 And David did so, as the Lord had commanded him, and smote the Philistines.
Although we will discuss the genocide of Amalekites in a later article, it is safe to say that virtually every Biblical authority agrees that this was God-ordained as well. In fact, God approved of everything David did—all of his many killings—except for “in the case of Uriah the Hittite”:
1 Kings 15:5 David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.
Uriah was one of King David’s soldiers. David had an affair with Uriah’s wife and had Uriah killed, an act which earned God’s displeasure. God forgave David, but it was the one killing that God did not approve of. The Geneva Study Bible commentary assures us that David “enterprised no war, but by God’s command.”
In fact, Jews and Christians today revere David’s “obedience to God” and even argue to become “more like David”. Jewish and Christian children read about David in Sunday school.
Addendum I:
Muhammad’s wars will be discussed in a future part of this series. But suffice to say, we have now set the groundwork to prove that several Jewish prophets–including Moses, Joshua, Samson, and David–were far more violent and warlike than Muhammad.
The major difference between Muhammad and the others was with regard to targeting and killing civilians. Samson killed 3,000 men and women in his suicide bomb attack, and David “did not leave a man or woman alive.” (1 Samuel 18:11) This stands in marked contrast with Muhammad who repeatedly “forbade the killing of women and children.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, Book 52, #258)
Regardless of issues surrounding historicity,what is quite clear is that the Bible glorifies genocide and the killing of civilians, whereas the Quran does not. Unlike the Bible, no single verse in the Quran talks about killing women, children, and babies.
March 20th, 2011 at 2:13 am
“eyeless in Gaza at the mill with slaves …..”
Samson should be on the Australian Olympic weightlifting team.
March 20th, 2011 at 3:24 am
Note: I just added some stuff under the section on David.
March 20th, 2011 at 3:38 am
I guess the argument made by some Islamophobe in the last article that “Jews have left Moses behind but Muslims still follow Muhammad” can’t work here since no one has left David behind — his star is on the Israeli flag. It also interesting that Spencer requires Muslims to condemn their own Prophet and reject his ‘violent’ teachings in order to become moderate. However, he doesn’t require Jews or Christians to condemn David before they can be accepted as peaceful.
March 20th, 2011 at 3:45 am
^ Mosizzle, the argument that “Jews have left Moses behind but Muslims still follow Muhammad” will be refuted in a future article.
Right now, we need Islamophobes to admit that the Bible is more violent and warlike than the Quran, which is their starting argument.
March 20th, 2011 at 4:32 am
Danios, when you’re finished with the series you might want too contact CAIR to ask them whether they’re interested in publishing it as a booklet.
I think it’d be great for Muslims to dispense at universities and to use as a referencebook to dispel prevailing myths on messages boards when they come across Islamophobes who push the idea Muslims are obligated to go around killing people because Muhammad did so, or that Muhammad was superevil.
March 20th, 2011 at 4:43 am
Wow, there’s a lot of violence here alright….making me feel very uncomfortable. Tho’ I almost fell off my chair laughing at the penile foreskins part. What was Saul thinking????
March 20th, 2011 at 5:27 am
King Saul reassured David that he accepted
American Expresspenile foreskinsLOL.
March 20th, 2011 at 5:31 am
This is interesting
March 20th, 2011 at 5:42 am
Where are the Islamophobes? I knew that the Bible contained a lot of stories about sex and violence but was taken aback when reading this article which gives a picture of how ruthless it was and was supposedly ordained by God (God forbid).I think this is the only language the Islamophobes understand so give it to them brother Danios. Where is the ever so sarcastic J-Bob?
And I wonder if these bigots would care to read what Ezekiel chapter 23 is all about, as the late Ahmed Deedat once said “I dare any good Christian to read this chapter…” in his debate with Tele-Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart.
March 20th, 2011 at 6:47 am
Another excellent article.
I find Israel’s Samson Option to pose more of an existential threat to the world than the projected “enemies” being fed by the media: Russia (the Soviet threat was an exaggerated one), China (scapegoated currently even those it’s the Fed’s own stupid policies that’s harming America’s economy not foreign countries), and Iran (a country that’s had to put it’s military on the defensive, and provoked into considering nukes even though it hadn’t beforehand) – then of course there’s Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan – they all didn’t like the news of 9/11 but what do they get in return? free genocide, oppressive occupation, and rigged elections.
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
http://globalresearch.ca/
@Mosizzle, David or Rothschild? either way, neither are
good examples of civilized humanity towards others.
March 20th, 2011 at 7:07 am
Don’t worry Sam Seed, they will show up! Just don’t expect them to actually address the points raised in the article! JB will bring up some act of ‘terrorism’ from some obscure part of the world and try changing the subject completely, and the rest will just rant off on some mindless BS about the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) being some kind of warmongering, genocidal Pedophile, regardless of how many times they are proven wrong! There very predictable like that!
March 20th, 2011 at 8:07 am
test
March 20th, 2011 at 9:20 am
With all due respects, I don’t see any rhyme or reason to do this jihad series. Except to prove that “yours” is bigger than “mine”.
Your jihad series is not going to change general public perceptions against us moslems. We have to prove it by our actions by being loyal to the non-moslem nations that we live in. And by our religious leaders and our moslem leaders to condemn violence and terrorism loud and clear.
BTW, don’t we as moslems consider the bible and the torah as “corrupted”????? And then isn’t it idiotic to compare???
There is an excellent discussion on JIHAD on the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/magazine/mag-20Salafis-t.html
March 20th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Good job.
I don’t know how far ahead this series is planned but another chapter could be discussing Banu Qurayzah. It is arguably the most violent incident involving the early Muslims but it is also clear that it was a *specific* decision made for unique circumstances. On the other hand, it was evidently based on the *policy* given in Deuteronomy for how you treat your enemies.
Another section would be the violence in the NT, especially in Revelations.
March 20th, 2011 at 10:39 am
“his star is on the Israeli flag”
the only thing you were able to connect with david is the israeli flag? you don’t know nothing about the ETERNAL promises Yhwh makes to David? you don’t know anything about yhwh’s REPEATED assurances about maintaing david’s dynasty ?
March 20th, 2011 at 10:45 am
i found some gems from the Hebrew bible
Exodus 14:13 Moses answered the people, “Do not be afraid. Stand firm and you will see the deliverance Yahweh will bring you today. The Egyptians you see today you will never see again. 14 Yahweh will FIGHT for you; you need only to be still.
Joshua 10:14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when Yahweh listened to a man. Surely Yahweh was FIGHTING for Israel!
Joshua 10:42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because Yahweh, the God of Israel, FOUGHT for Israel.
Joshua 23:3 You yourselves have seen everything Yahweh your God has done to all these nations for your sake; it was Yahweh your God who FOUGHT for you.
March 20th, 2011 at 10:48 am
MOsizle:
“his star is on the Israeli flag”
rambo:
the only thing you were able to connect with david is the israeli flag? you don’t know nothing about the ETERNAL promises Yhwh makes to David? you don’t know anything about yhwh’s REPEATED assurances about maintaing david’s dynasty ?
rambo:
i would add that ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONES WERE attached.
March 20th, 2011 at 10:54 am
“the only thing you were able to connect with david is the israeli flag?”
There are also Jews and Christians today who argue that children should become “more like David.” Of course, I doubt that they’re going to run around smiting people, but if a Muslim said to be “more like Muhammad” then you can be assured the usual suspects would start posting a few rants on the internet. Also, why is this the only argument that Islamophobes have? It seems that they’re more than happy to reject their own prophets as long as it means looking less hypocritical when bashing Muslims. It’s pretty sad, really. Danios already said that this topic will be covered more extensively, eventually.
http://www.nathhan.com/godsownheart.htm
March 20th, 2011 at 11:13 am
“What was Saul thinking????”
Actually, he thought David would be killed for sure. One less competitor for the throne less to worry about, because according to the biblical account, David was getting pretty popular. Therefore, he needed to go. Saul tried to kill him a number of times.
March 20th, 2011 at 11:16 am
” need Islamophobes to admit that the Bible is more violent and warlike than the Quran, which is their starting argument.”
i wonder which islamophobe you have in mind? the christian one? you see the christian one will simply downplay the bloody violence in the hebrew bible. twist language. claim that it is hyperbole language. assume that “destroy everything that breaths” does not meant everything that breaths.
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JFTMillerGoodQuestion5.html
see how they make lot of assumptions to soften the violence in the hEBREW bible??
March 20th, 2011 at 11:33 am
http://agnosticreview.com/
I like using the above site against Fundie Christian proselytizing propaganda that the Bible itself seems to be at odds against. You and others here at LW might benefit from it as well, “rambo.”
Take care.
March 20th, 2011 at 11:46 am
Today is International Judge the Koran Day. There’s about three hours until the Quran is going to be judged by the same morons that tried to burn it last year. It’s been put on trial on charges of “inciting murder, rape and terrorist activities”. Sheikh Muhammad al Hassan will be the defence but clearly that whole thing is biased. The Prosecution has 3 expert witnesses — 2 of whom are ex-Muslims and the other is a Christian whose father was “killed by Sharia Law”. The Defence seems to have no witnesses.
Thankfully, the media has been responsible this time round. But it seems Terry Jones is wanting to try and burn it once more.
These articles have come at an appropriate time. Perhaps Jones can put the Bible on trial as well, since it fits the charges much more than the Quran.
March 20th, 2011 at 11:53 am
“http://agnosticreview.com/
I like using the above site against Fundie Christian proselytizing propaganda that the Bible itself seems to be at odds against. You and others here at LW might benefit from it as well, “rambo.”
Take care.”
the article i just linked to straigtens out every twist and turn of the christian apologist farrell till addressed. it also does a point by point rebuttal. it is good to have excellent language skills and a bit of logic when dealing with christian abuse of the hebrew bible.
March 20th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Harry Guggen, either you are a toddler or an emotional wreck. ‘we moslems’, you tried but you are betrayed by the stupid things you wrote. Try again to be a ‘moslem’. Oh, i love it!
March 20th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
How about the Talmud, can we put that on trial too?
covers all three Abrahamic faiths.
March 20th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Harry Guggen, I think you should read the “disclaimer” at the top of the page. That was the first line of the article, how did you miss it? That explains your question. Here’s the link again:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/03/2011/03/the-understanding-jihad-series-is-islam-more-likely-than-other-religions-to-encourage-violence/
March 20th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Harry Guggen is doing ‘taqiyya’.
March 20th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Demprist, why focus on the Talmud? And in what sense does it cover all three Abrahamic faiths? Only Jews actually believe it. Fundamentalist Christians believe the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament is inspired but don’t really follow the Talmud. Muslims don’t really follow either.
March 20th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
I think he means that the Quran covers Muslims, Bible covers Christians, and Talmud covers Jews. But I think in actuality the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) covers Jews.
March 20th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Danios is correct, however some Jews are very strict and differentiate the Hebrew Bible from the Christian Bible’s “Old” and “New Testament” as entirely separate texts. They can usually be found at places like the Yahoo group JPA (Jews, Pagans, and Allies) or even the Messiahtruth website.
March 20th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Now, does the Bible promise heavenly rewards for holy warriors who die whilst killing unbelievers?
March 20th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Couple of Points:
~ According to the movie,”Samson and Delilah” I saw in the early 1950′s,the secret of Samson’s enormous physical power was in the long hair he had. The beautiful Philistinian,Delilah,managed to make him falling in love with her.Through their intimate relationship,she managed cutting his hair after which it had become easy for her people,the Philistines,to capture him,which they did. He only could destroy the Philistines’ Temple only as his hair grew-up. It is an entertaining movie.I thought the director,Cecil Demil,the leading actor,Victor Mature(Samson),the leading actress,Hedi Lammar(Delilah),all had done a good job. It is very entertaining and is worth the time in seeing it.
~ I wonder why so many 21st century Jews,Christians and Muslims keep naming their children Moses and David after what those two guys had done: the former was a murderer and the latter was a murderer and adulterer. Such a wonderment of mine has nothing to do with the profound respect I do hold for the three Abrahamic religions,inspite of the fact that I am not a religious person,at all.
March 20th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
On the other hand, it was evidently based on the *policy* given in Deuteronomy for how you treat your enemies.
I’m not aware of any ‘policy’ for Jews to follow in Deuteronomy. Care to elaborate?
Another section would be the violence in the NT, especially in Revelations.
It’s actually Revelation. And I fail to see how end of days prophecies is any more violent than the destruction of entire peoples by Allah and his followers recorded in the Koran, either in the past or prophesied in the future.
March 20th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
“And I fail to see how end of days prophecies is any more violent than the destruction of entire peoples by Allah and his followers recorded in the Koran, either in the past or prophesied in the future.”
I don’t see why you’re complaining, since you have a penchant for whining about how the concept of Hell exists in the Qur’an. More than a bit hypocritical if you ask me.
Anyway, when are you going to admit that the Bible is more violent than the Qur’an? Clearly, the lives of Moses, Joshua, Samson, and David are far more violent than that of Muhammad — at least in the way purported by the Jewish and Christian traditions.
March 20th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
“I’m not aware of any ‘policy’ for Jews to follow in Deuteronomy. Care to elaborate?”
The Jews were judged at the time by their own law. Sa’ad ibn Mu’adh, the arbiter appointed, said “I will judge them according to the Law of Musa”. This was probably done to avoid any complaining about the harsh punishment as it would come from their own laws.
The passage that many people identify as being from the Torah that Sa’ad (who was from the tribe that was friendly with the Jews) used is Deuteronomy 20:12-14. However, there is no direct evidence that this is the exact passage, only that the law used was that of the Jews themselves. However, the passage seems to exactly describe what happened. Also, Sa’ad used to be Jewish so he had knowledge of these issues.
“12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.”
I hope Danios’ next article deals with this. The loons are getting impatient!
“And I fail to see how end of days prophecies is any more violent than the destruction of entire peoples by Allah and his followers recorded in the Koran, either in the past or prophesied in the future.”
But you admit that the violent destruction of entire peoples by God and his followers recorded in the Bible is far worse than that in the Quran. That seems to be the point of the three articles in the series so far.
March 20th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
JB is gettin’ a bit defensive. Let this be a lesson! or will he ever learn??
March 20th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Deuteronomy 20:12-14
Nope, this could not be the passage in question. The passage is referring to a specific people at a specific time. You would have to show that this was how Rabbinic Jews interpreted the Bible in the seventh century for me to believe that this was nothing more than an interpolation by later Muslim authors.
March 20th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
^hmmm…sounds awfully familiar. So you’re saying that only Rabbinic Jews can interpret the bible?? Muslims are not allowed to interpret. Interesting!
March 20th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
So do non-Muslims interpret Islam for Muslims and wage holy war against Muslims because it’s in the Koran?
Errr?
March 20th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
^Some non-Muslims do distort what’s in the Quran to start war against Muslims because of their political, selfish agenda!
March 20th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Yes,indeed,Khushboo.
I have lived in it all my life.
Cheers………….
March 20th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
passage is referring to a specific people at a specific time.
It sounds like a very likely candidate. People have often identified that Biblical passage before, in regards to the punishment of the Banu Qurayza. As for it “referring to a specific people at a specific time,” I find it funny that you don’t allow the same for Surah 9: 5, even after being shown numerous Tafsirs. Clearly, there is an immense double standard you apply against Islam.
You would have to show that this was how Rabbinic Jews interpreted the Bible in the seventh century for me to believe that this was nothing more than an interpolation by later Muslim authors.
Firstly, does it really matter what you believe? You believe that FOX news has a pro-Muslim bias, so it’s already clear that your logic is extremely warped. Secondly, what matters is what’s in the Islamic traditions, not the interpolation and baseless conjecture of a hateful troll. You’ve shown before that you literally fabricate your own version of what happened about 1,400 years ago, even rejecting Hadith at whim and pretending that you have access to the intimate thoughts of 7th century Muslims. If the Islamophobic argument is so strong, then why are you repeatedly forced to reject parts of the Sunnah (and interpretations of the Qur’an by Muslims)?
So do non-Muslims interpret Islam for Muslims and wage holy war against Muslims because it’s in the Koran?
Well, Spencer has explicitly written about the need for a new Crusade against Islam. He did this after ranting about the Qur’an, Islam, and the Prophet Muhammad for several chapters. I do hope that Turkey isn’t involved in his new Crusade, because we all know how that “noble effort” will end.
PS: When are you going to admit that the lives of the Biblical Moses, David, Joshua, and Samson are far more violent than that of Muhammad? I take it that you’re conceding defeat through your silence on the issue?
March 20th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
*The link doesn’t seem to be working. Here it is.
March 20th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
So you’re saying non-Muslims can have Muslims feel themselves subdued just for being Muslim?
March 20th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
So you’re saying non-Muslims can have Muslims feel themselves subdued just for being Muslim?
I’m saying that the Biblical Moses, Joshua, Samson, and David are far more violent than the Prophet Muhammad. I’m sure you agree, despite your deafening silence on the matter.
March 20th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Rabbinic authorities have come up with a fairly widely accepted enumeration of 613 commandments of the Torah. The genocidal commandments, and the commands about taking concubines, and enslaving the women and children of your enemies are all still there in the section on war if you want to read them.
Furthermore the PEneteuch is fairly clear on the point that the commandments of the Torah are meant to be followed forever. Christianity has an “out” since most Christians teach that the Torah was done away with after Jesus came, but Judaism doesn’t do any such thing. The only commands which can’t be followed are those which are moot because they don’t apply (e.g. the laws regarding the Temple don’t apply if the Temple isn’t standing)
March 21st, 2011 at 12:10 am
@Danios,
I was going through all of your earlier articles on this site and was wondering about a comment you made in response to an Islamophobe:
“Yup. Take your heart out of your chest, wash all the hate out, and put it back in. You will feel like a much better person. I was a hate-filled person before, and after I renounced it–and dedicated my life to refuting such hate-filled people–I felt much better about myself.”
This might sound like a crazy question………but, were you also one of them before you turned into a crime fighter Danios?
March 21st, 2011 at 12:24 am
Thank god its jihad bob. I thought that out intertainement had left us, but he prevails. How much does Danios pay jihad bob to post, 50$ per post mabey 80$ what ever it is double it. Where can you buy those things any way? I need to get one, so much better than telivision
March 21st, 2011 at 12:30 am
It’s a Bot, regurgitating the same tired old stuff.
March 21st, 2011 at 1:59 am
“So do non-Muslims interpret Islam for Muslims and wage holy war against Muslims because it’s in the Koran?”
Learn to read. War wasn’t waged against the Jews because of the Torah. War happened because of their treason. When it comes to punishing them, the judge decides that he will use The Law of Moses to judge them because that will avoid any complaining or objections by people who will say that the law is too harsh.
“The passage is referring to a specific people at a specific time”
All the websites I’m looking at refer to Deuteronomy 20:10-12 as the summary of Jewish rules of war. They do so because Deuteronomy 10 requires Jews to favour peace over war, so it’s nice passage to quote. Anyways, here’s the relevant bit on Jewish rules of war:
“This approach solves another difficult problem according to Jewish law: the role of the “innocent” civilian in combat. Since the Jewish tradition accepts that civilians (and soldiers who are surrendering) are always entitled to flee from the scene of the battle, it would logically follow that all who remain voluntarily are classified as combatants, since the opportunity to leave is continuously present. Particularly in combination with Joshua’s practice of sending letters of warning in advance of combat, this legal approach limits greatly the role of the doctrine of “innocent civilian” in the Jewish tradition. Essentially, the Jewish tradition feels that innocent civilians should do their very best to remove themselves from the battlefield and those who remain are not so innocent. If one voluntarily stays in a city that is under siege, one has the status of a combatant
The unintentional and undesirable killing of involuntarily remaining innocent civilians seems to this author to be the one “killing” activity which is permissible in Jewish law in war situations which would not be permissible in the pursuer/self-defense situations. Just like Jewish law permits one to send one’s own soldiers out to combat (without their consent) to be perhaps killed, Jewish law would allow the unintentional killing of innocent civilians as a necessary (but undesired byproduct) of the moral license of war.”
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/war3.html
Jewish writer Michale J Broyde still mentions it as part of Jewish Law. So did the famous 12th century Jewish scholar Maimonides. So obviously Jews aren’t interpreting the passage as you do now. They consider it part of Jewish law and this writer justifies it quite convincingly. So why is the Israeli army not doing this? Is it because they don’t believe it applies today? No, actually. Broyde says that Jewish law commands Israel to abide by international law (Ha!) and so they have to do things differently. There are many traditional scholars who disagree. But that’s not the question.
The question is: was this part of Jewish law in the 7th Century? Considering that it is still part of law in the 21st Century, but has only been superseded by the international agreements of the 20th Century, then yes. In fact, had the Jews conquered Medina they would have done exactly the same thing to the Muslims.
March 21st, 2011 at 4:10 am
What I have always found intriguing, is that the Qur’an often leaves out the “bad” stories attributed to the Prophets of the Bible. For example, Noah is not described as being drunk and cursing his children, Lot is not said to have had sex with his daughters, etc. Perhaps this is an indication that the Author of the Qur’an does not accept these stories as accurate part of the scriptures?
March 21st, 2011 at 5:57 am
That is exactly why the muslims say that the other scriptures have been corrupted!
Muslims reject those stories of incest, debauchery and rape.
The message of the prophets has always been to remind people that there is no god but the one god. The message of tauheed.
March 21st, 2011 at 6:51 am
@Garo “I wonder why so many 21st century Jews,Christians and Muslims keep naming their children Moses and David after what those two guys had done: the former was a murderer and the latter was a murderer and adulterer. Such a wonderment of mine has nothing to do with the profound respect I do hold for the three Abrahamic religions,inspite of the fact that I am not a religious person,at all.”
Muslims name their children Moses (Musa) or David (Dawood) because they see them as perfect examples of servants of God. We don’t consider the biblical acount to be historically correct therefore we reject that David commited adultery and murder or that Moses commited genocide.
I can not answer for Jews and Christians hopefull a Jewish/Christian Reader can clarify this.
March 21st, 2011 at 7:17 am
@Mumija; As someone who was brought up a Christian and been one for about twenty years, I think I could answer that. Well, from a Christian perspective anyway.
Christians take the biblical stories about the shortcomings of their prophets to mean that all people are sinners. Even the heroes of faith make mistakes (like Noah getting drunk or David committing adultery, even though technically, neither Noah nor David are considered ‘prophets’ according to Christian understanding, since ‘prophet’ is a technical term for someone who is inspired by God to communicate His message to man).
As far as the killings of entire tribes and nations go, as far as it was ordered by God (according to the Scriptures) modern day Christians will argue in a variety of strategies that justify these mass killings without leading to the conclusion that it’s okay to do so again.
So they’ll argue that since God is the creator of every individual life, he also has the right to take life away, that these were especially harsh times, that the pagans of old were especially sinful, that it was necessary to kill the other nations in Canaan to prevent the Israelites from going along with idolatry, sacred prostitution, child sacrifice and what have you not, – anyway, you get the idea. They’ll argue that these were exceptional circumstances and you’d need a revelation from God to allow for such action. But since most Christians believe God doesn’t speak in that way anymore after the Bible was finished, that’s not going to happen. Problem solved!
They will do anything to prevent themselves from associating modern day genocides (which is far to close for comfort) with genocides in biblical times, which for them is almost like a magical time when God still spoke to mankind directly and miracles still happened.
But as far as sins go, Christianity teaches that all men and women are under the spell of sinfulness, so of course the heroes of faith also make mistakes, sometimes grave ones, and Jesus Christ died on the cross to atone for that too.
March 21st, 2011 at 8:17 am
Mumija and Jack: Thank you both.
Jack,
please stay tuned for a follow-up.
March 21st, 2011 at 8:19 am
Thanks for that Jack
Peace be with you
March 21st, 2011 at 8:58 am
Jack: “…these were harsh time…”
Well,Jack,it seems to me that humanity has an incurable decease called “harsh time”. I call it bluntly “war”.
I grew up in the 20th century. All I have witnessed till present time one single trend that has connected most decades of the 20th century and the early part of the 21st century. That trend is war after war after war etc..
And it seems,at least to me,there is no end to the endless wars. Why? Human nature? Survival of the fittest?,or What? or perhaps,economies that depend on wars?
In justifying the invasion and destruction of Iraq,some Right-Wing Christian evangelical leaders appeared on TV’s different talk shows in 2003 and claimed that the God of the Bible was/is the “God of War”. And yet,on their Sunday’s sermons,the same leaders called their God,as embodied in Jesus Christ,”The God of Love”. They could not possibly have it both ways. Could they?
Your comments,”from a Christian perspective”,please.
March 21st, 2011 at 9:10 am
Jack, this is a little bit of a random and a little offtopic question. How does god killing himself save humanity in christian beleif?
March 21st, 2011 at 9:25 am
Danios,
Why don’t you also do a series on the “Religious Beliefs of the Founding Fathers.” I’ve read a little into it and it seems they were not religious people AT ALL! Thomas Jefferson, for example, criticized the trinity and his views would be considered heretical by today’s orthodox standards. He referred to the Revelation of St. John as “the ravings of a maniac” and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained.
Benjamin Franklin said: As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion…has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble.” He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
March 21st, 2011 at 12:11 pm
I wonder if Adriana Lima is a stealth jihadist?
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh10c6UDgT1qhrbbso1_500.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.womeninscarves.com/&usg=__R-_jltrbxIVtl7hV4wxvEdEcYxI=&h=679&w=500&sz=56&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=x8K9Nu_gwNtUzM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=89&ei=eJSHTaqALMHo4Aad9fC_CA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dadriana%2Blima%2Bheadscarf%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D677%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=293&vpy=53&dur=847&hovh=262&hovw=193&tx=105&ty=138&oei=eJSHTaqALMHo4Aad9fC_CA&page=1&ndsp=39&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0
March 21st, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Oh right so the bible advocates suicide bombing!
I can’t think of any other religion has followers who believe they are following their principles of their faith and their god by blowing themselves up. I may be wrong but I can bring to mind names of a lot of Muslims who believed in blowing themselves up in the name of Islam, but can’t think of anyone – do you have any names I can google? Also, where do all these virgins come from, and where do they go once the martyred suicide bomber has had his way with them?
March 21st, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Isa,
It is true that the Quran doesn’t contain some of the more scandalous stories which are found in the Bible. I think that to some degree this has to do with the doctrine of sinlessness of prophets. Muhammad (saaws) own behavior was itself exemplary so almost by definition his behavior has to be near perfect. And in a similar way, all the prophets are, in some way, protected from sinking past a certain point.
At the same time, the Quran still does still tell the story of Moses murdering the Egyptian. It still tells the story of Jonah running away when he was sent to Nineveh. And if you are familiar with the Biblical story of David and Bathsheba, there is a passage in the Quran which seems like a very delicate reference to the same event. And apparently there are some scholars who explicitly accept some version of the story of David and Bathsheba.
In the three cases, the prophets are still described in somewhat more virtuous ways than they are in the Bible, but a doctrine of absolute sinlessness seems hard to justify.
March 21st, 2011 at 1:14 pm
John, the Tamil Tigers also do suicide bombing. But if you break suicide bombing to its basic elements, there were certainly Christian soldiers during the Crusades who did reckless and “stupid” things on the battlefield because they felt that being a martyr would guarantee them salvation. As Jesus is made to say, “Greater love hath no one than this; that he lay down his life for his friends”
March 21st, 2011 at 1:36 pm
“Oh right so the bible advocates suicide bombing!”
Err, no. Learn to read, John. Not a single line in this article even remotely suggests that. Perhaps you haven’t even read it, and jumped in as soon as you saw suicide bomber and launched a rant against Islam. What a failure in basic reading comprehension.
“I can’t think of any other religion has followers who believe they are following their principles of their faith and their god by blowing themselves up”
Oooh. Unlucky, John. The Tamil Tigers have carried out over 160 suicide bombings, including one notable incident where the Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, was assassinated as a female member of the organisation blew herself up in front of him. In fact, the Tamil Tigers are credited with inventing the suicide belt. The Tamil Tigers were not Muslim, they were actually quite anti-Muslim and forced many out of their homes.
The article is about a comparison between the violence of Biblical Prophets vs the violence of the Prophet Muhammad. This is only intended to silence those hypocritical Jewish and Christian Islamophobes who attack the Prophet for being violent yet still admire Prophets in their own scriptures that are far far more violent. The title comes from the story of Samson, who is described as carrying out a suicide attack on the Phillistines in the Old Testament and killing 3000 (equivalent to the death toll of 9/11).
It would be appreciated if you could deal with the topic of the article rather than random accusations.
March 21st, 2011 at 1:41 pm
All the websites I’m looking at refer to Deuteronomy 20:10-12 as the summary of Jewish rules of war.
Oh, but you didn’t quote Deut 20:10-12 but originally quoted Deut 20:12-14.
So I was simply responding to what you quoted.
In the three cases, the prophets are still described in somewhat more virtuous ways than they are in the Bible, but a doctrine of absolute sinlessness seems hard to justify.
Abdul, David is not a prophet in Judaism. I wished you would learn of Judaism from more neutral sources than Dawa websites, otherwise you and Danios would not have both made this very basic error.
I once had a discussion with a Dawagondist whom I caught lifting Bible verses from a Muslim missionary website. It was because he relied on missionary websites for his information on Christianity that I was able to catch him on the most basic errors regarding Christian history and the Bible. Unfortunately, our Dawagondadist wasn’t the least bit fazed after he repeatedly attributed a quote from an Epistle to Jesus. He was unable to register his fundamental mistake of the Bible because he relied on websites so much that he did not even understand the differences between the Epistles and Gospels. From my interaction with Muslims, they all seem to believe every book of the New Testament is a Gospel save, perhaps, the Book of Revelation.
March 21st, 2011 at 1:44 pm
freak
March 21st, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Lot is not said to have had sex with his daughters, etc. Perhaps this is an indication that the Author of the Qur’an does not accept these stories as accurate part of the scriptures?
Define ‘bad’, Isa. I certainly can’t think of modern Westerners who would offer their children to be raped by a mob as Lot is recorded as doing in the Koran or a prophet who murders a child because he’ll later grow up and shame his parents by becoming a disbeliever.
As society progresses, more and more stories in the Koran will be disregarded as quaint bedtime readings but not something for individuals to live by or take direct examples from.
March 21st, 2011 at 1:51 pm
“Oh, but you didn’t quote Deut 20:10-12 but originally quoted Deut 20:12-14.”
I meant that the Jewish writers whose articles I was reading quoted verse 10,11 and 12 because the message is good and acceptable. But when it comes to verse 13 and 14, the writers understand that readers might be shocked at the content if they aren’t that knowledgeable so they don’t quote it but proceed to justify the act of putting the captured civilians to the sword — which is basically the point of verses 13 and 14 — by emphasising that civilians who flee before the army breaks into the city are spared. They do this without referring to that verse directly, but it’s clear that they are talking about those verses.
But the judgement of Banu Qurayza does seem to be from Deuteronomy 20:12-14 — Once the siege is over: execute the men of fighting age, enslave the women and children and keep their property.
March 21st, 2011 at 1:54 pm
“I wished you would learn of Judaism from more neutral sources than Dawa websites”
where do you learn about judaism? answering islam? james patrick holding? m brown? sam shamoun? evangelical christian channels?
it is the jews of messiah truth forum who say that the ishmaelim are not herem, but the christians are.
should israel be free from idolatry?
let a member from messiah truth forum answer :
http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/reply/42196#reply-42196
Ideally, Eretz Yisraél should be free from all idolatry—which includes chrstianity (but not Islam)—and, God willing, in the time of the King-Mashiyaḥ it will be so. However, until that time, we have to tolerate idol-worshippers in our “midst”.
Moreover, God commands us in His Torah to loathe and despise all idol-worshippers (and, again, that includes chrstians)….
פְּסִילֵ֥י אֱלֹֽהֵיהֶ֖ם תִּשְׂרְפ֣וּן בָּאֵ֑שׁ לֹֽא־תַחְמֹד֩ כֶּ֨סֶף וְזָהָ֤ב עֲלֵיהֶם֙ וְלָֽקַחְתָּ֣ לָ֔ךְ פֶּ֚ן תִּוָּקֵ֣שׁ בּ֔וֹ כִּ֧י תֽוֹעֲבַ֛ת יְיָ֥ אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ הֽוּא׃ וְלֹֽא־תָבִ֤יא תֽוֹעֵבָה֙ אֶל־בֵּיתֶ֔ךָ וְהָיִ֥יתָ חֵ֖רֶם כָּמֹ֑הוּ שַׁקֵּ֧ץ ׀ תְּֽשַׁקְּצֶ֛נּוּ וְתַעֵ֥ב ׀ תְּֽתַֽעֲבֶ֖נּוּ כִּי־חֵ֥רֶם הֽוּא׃”Burn the carved statues of their gods in a fire; don’t desire the silver or gold that decorates them and take it for yourself in case it entraps you: it is disgusting to Adonai your God. Don’t bring anything disgusting like that [i.e. like the precious metals that decorate the gentiles' idols] into your house or you will become ḥérem like them [i.e. like the idol-worshippers] — you are to feel total revulsion and utter disgust for each of them because they are ḥérem.” (D’varim 7:25-26)
and I repeat that this includes chrstianity, which IS idolatry (whether chrstians like to admit it or not).”
ot says that by the time of the messiah all nations will worship the hebrew God Yhwh. what happends to the idolaterors in the time of the messiah who REFUSE to worship the ot GOd Yhwh and who fight for thier gods?
March 21st, 2011 at 2:03 pm
“otherwise you and Danios would not have both made this very basic error.”
Danios recognised that he was a King of Israel:
“The militant sword of Israel was then passed from the judges to holy kings…Eventually David became king of Israel and continued his string of conquests, subjugating heathens to Israelite rule”
I think it’s clear that Danios knew that David was a King so any sentence that has you believing otherwise must be a mistake on Danios’ part.
“From my interaction with Muslims, they all seem to believe every book of the New Testament is a Gospel save, perhaps, the Book of Revelation.”
You mean your non-existent interaction with Muslims. By the way, I know that there are 4 gospels in the New Testament, so obviously you are lying if you say that all Muslims you’ve “interacted” with didn’t know this.
March 21st, 2011 at 2:05 pm
“I wished you would learn of Judaism from more neutral sources than Dawa websites”
the christian ” new covenant” propaganda is INSULTING to the jews. didn’t you learn that from a neautral source? didn’t you learn that calling the torah “old” is OFFENSIVE to the jews? here comes a pauline telling the muslims about learning about judaism from more neutral sources.
March 21st, 2011 at 2:20 pm
the christian ” new covenant” propaganda is INSULTING to the jews.
I’ll be happy to offer you some modern scholarship on Christianity and the New Testament:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm
I can’t correct someone’s misunderstanding when it’s passed off as fact.
Also, please let me know what ‘Jews’ think of the Muslim belief that the Hebrew Bible has been corrupted by Rabbis to erase any reference to Muhammad and that modern Jews are ‘Talmudists’?
March 21st, 2011 at 2:25 pm
“I certainly can’t think of modern Westerners who would offer their children to be raped by a mob as Lot is recorded as doing in the Koran or a prophet who murders a child because he’ll later grow up and shame his parents by becoming a disbeliever.”
Here we have the Jahil doing his own tafsir again. Did Lot(as) really offer his daughters up to be raped, according to Qur’an? Did Khidr(as) really kill the boy because it was believed he shame his parents by becoming a kafir? I remember asking you JahilBob to post the relevant verses of the Qur’an when you make your claims, so that everyone can see for themselves what you are really doing.
“As society progresses, more and more stories in the Koran will be disregarded as quaint bedtime readings but not something for individuals to live by or take direct examples from.”
Thank you for laying your bigotry out boldly for all to see. According to you, society is said to “progress” as more and more of the Qur’an is discarded!
Allahu A’lam
March 21st, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Btw, ‘rambo’ is some fake who lifted his post from someone more than six months ago:
http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/edl-speaker-says-it-is-gods-will-to-kill-apostates-and-homosexuals/
Or should I call you mansubzero, ‘rambo’?
March 21st, 2011 at 2:27 pm
“I certainly can’t think of modern Westerners who would offer their children to be raped by a mob as Lot is recorded as doing in the Koran”
Quran 15:71
Lot said: “These (the girls of the nation) are my daughters (to marry lawfully) if you must act (so)”
Looks like the translator knew some smart-ass Islamophobe would try to imply that Lot was offering his daughters to be raped. The verse clearly means that Lot is offering his daughters for marriage, as Islam forbids sex outside of marriage. Of course, this is far far better than the Bible’s claim that Lot had sex with his daughters…
“a prophet who murders a child because he’ll later grow up and shame his parents by becoming a disbeliever.”
Not everyone is sure that Khizr was actually a Prophet. But let’s forget that issue for the moment. The reason he was allowed to take the life of the child is that God had given him knowledge of the future. Hence, he was able to make decisions that other humans would not be able to make and are forbidden for them. In fact, even Moses objected to what Khizr was doing. Khizr is still a bit of a mystery in the Islamic tradition, he is implied to have been given special knowledge as opposed to the revelations that Moses had been given. What is certain is that Khizr’s example is not meant to be followed. We are to follow what has been revealed to us.
A comparison here is that some people would kill Hitler as a child if they knew that he would grow up to be a dictator, to prevent the bad consequences such as the Holocaust. Obviously, no one will know that knowledge beforehand so it is illegal and forbidden for them to do so.
“As society progresses, more and more stories in the Koran will be disregarded as quaint bedtime readings but not something for individuals to live by or take direct examples from.”
You mean as the Bible is now? Lol. Couldn’t resist. Anyways, how is it that you have failed to understand the point of this series. Do you admit that, in general, the Bible is more violent than the Quran?
March 21st, 2011 at 2:27 pm
mansubzero said, on October 29, 2010 at 6:29 pm
“You have to have two witnesses, 13 years or older that believe in the Torah, to ”
it was very hard for the god of israel to include the bS you quoted? god of the torah had to wait for some jew to create CONDITIONS because the jew found uncomfortable the plain torah law? the rabbi is a dirty, disgusting hypocrite. exegesis created and then red in to a law which isn’t enviromental friendly.sort of like the faggot beliefs of paulines who say, i paraphrase , ” god self abused himself (atoning works) and now torah laws are no longer needed. ”
should israel be free from idolatry?
let a member from messiah truth forum answer :
http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/reply/42196#reply-42196
Ideally, Eretz Yisraél should be free from all idolatry—which includes chrstianity (but not Islam)—and, God willing, in the time of the King-Mashiyaḥ it will be so. However, until that time, we have to tolerate idol-worshippers in our “midst”.
Moreover, God commands us in His Torah to loathe and despise all idol-worshippers (and, again, that includes chrstians)….
פְּסִילֵ֥י אֱלֹֽהֵיהֶ֖ם תִּשְׂרְפ֣וּן בָּאֵ֑שׁ לֹֽא־תַחְמֹד֩ כֶּ֨סֶף וְזָהָ֤ב עֲלֵיהֶם֙ וְלָֽקַחְתָּ֣ לָ֔ךְ פֶּ֚ן תִּוָּקֵ֣שׁ בּ֔וֹ כִּ֧י תֽוֹעֲבַ֛ת יְיָ֥ אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ הֽוּא׃ וְלֹֽא־תָבִ֤יא תֽוֹעֵבָה֙ אֶל־בֵּיתֶ֔ךָ וְהָיִ֥יתָ חֵ֖רֶם כָּמֹ֑הוּ שַׁקֵּ֧ץ ׀ תְּֽשַׁקְּצֶ֛נּוּ וְתַעֵ֥ב ׀ תְּֽתַֽעֲבֶ֖נּוּ כִּי־חֵ֥רֶם הֽוּא׃”Burn the carved statues of their gods in a fire; don’t desire the silver or gold that decorates them and take it for yourself in case it entraps you: it is disgusting to Adonai your God. Don’t bring anything disgusting like that [i.e. like the precious metals that decorate the gentiles' idols] into your house or you will become ḥérem like them [i.e. like the idol-worshippers] — you are to feel total revulsion and utter disgust for each of them because they are ḥérem.” (D’varim 7:25-26)
and I repeat that this includes chrstianity, which IS idolatry (whether chrstians like to admit it or not).”
so according to the well learnt mordochai, the proffessor, people like madman and other paulines are HEREM!
note that the JEWISH contributors to that forum do not spell “christianity” and “jesus” properly. they omit few letters, because according to them paganism (i.e. christianity) should not have accurate pronouciation.
“so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God”
when the jews were conducting their blitzkrich on amalekit people, did they delay thier blitzcrich and ask the little children who were wiped out, “are you sure u are an idolatoror” ??
***********************
Rambo, posing as a Jew to attack Christians. That’s pretty funny.
Especially when you appear to be some anti-Semitic Muslim.
March 21st, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Just ignore him, Bob, ‘rambo’ was banned for his disgusting remarks but somehow managed to change his IP address and post again.
March 21st, 2011 at 2:30 pm
If my memory is correct, Lot does offer his daughters according to the Islamic version. However, he doesn’t have incestuous relations with them, which is what Isa mentioned and the reason Bob is suffering from a tantrum.
March 21st, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Bob, did you really feel the need to copy/paste the entirety of Rambo’s post, or are you just spamming and trolling again?
“Abdul, David is not a prophet in Judaism. I wished you would learn of Judaism from more neutral sources than Dawa websites, otherwise you and Danios would not have both made this very basic error.”
Perhaps he isn’t a prophet of Judaism, but he is a Jewish Prophet of Christianity — so technically Danios has made no error, even if what you’re claiming is correct. Denying David’s importance in Judaism and Christianity is dishonest, as evidenced by the Star of David on Israel’s flag. Some Judeo-Christians even ask their children to emulate David. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, but remember that some Islamophobes become enraged whenever a Muslim speaks of the Prophet Muhammad positively.
March 21st, 2011 at 2:42 pm
15.067
YUSUFALI: The inhabitants of the city came in (mad) joy (at news of the young men).
15.068
YUSUFALI: Lut said: “These are my guests: disgrace me not:
15.071
YUSUFALI: He said: “There are my daughters (to marry), if ye must act (so).”
So you’re saying Lot offered his daughters to a mob of ravenous men to marry? Even if your claim stands up to scrutiny, the story is unpalatable for Western consumption. How many Westerners believe in handing their daughters over to a mob for ‘marriage’ to be the right thing?
What kind of screening process is that? A mob wants to rape some men and Lot says, ‘Wait! Take my daughters to ‘marry’ instead.’
Yeah, ok. Regardless if it was marriage or not, the entire episode is still not something to be emulated by people for today.
(and the Koran does allow relations between men and women outside of marriage, but that’s another story)
March 21st, 2011 at 2:45 pm
The story of Lot is a bit complicated. In the Quran it says:
[11.77] And when Our messengers came to Lut, he was grieved for them, and he lacked strength to protect them, and said: This is a hard day.
[11.78] And his people came to him, (as if) rushed on towards him, and already they did evil deeds. He said: O my people! these are my daughters– they are purer for you, so guard against (the punishment of) Allah and do not disgrace me with regard to my guests; is there not among you one right-minded man?
[11.79] They said: Certainly you know that we have no claim on your daughters, and most surely you know what we desire.
[11.80] He said: Ah! that I had power to suppress you, rather I shall have recourse to a strong support.
[11.81] They said: O Lut! we are the messengers of your Lord; they shall by no means reach you; so remove your followers in a part of the night– and let none of you turn back– except your wife, for surely whatsoever befalls them shall befall her; surely their appointed time is the morning; is not the morning nigh?
[11.82] So when Our decree came to pass, We turned them upside down and rained down upon them stones, of what had been decreed, one after another.
[11.83] Marked (for punishment) with your Lord and it is not far off from the unjust.
March 21st, 2011 at 2:48 pm
I don’t see why it makes any difference or has any relevance whether or not David fits into rabbinic parameters of who is or isn’t a prophet. In any case, he was the means God chose to use to transmit the Psalms (which is considered scripture) and he is described in the Bible as a “man after God’s own heart.”
March 21st, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Good point, Muhammad Abd Al Haq, when you actually take a look at the verses, it is clear Bob has made something up. Of the 6 translations that I checked, none of them mention what he claims.
The relevant verse:
Quran 18:80
“”And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief.”
That is quite different to “he’ll later grow up and shame his parents by becoming a disbeliever.”. Looks like Bob needs to “learn of [Islam] from more neutral sources than [Islamophobic] websites…otherwise you…would not have both made this very basic error.”
March 21st, 2011 at 2:49 pm
”So you’re saying Lot offered his daughters to a mob of ravenous men to marry? Even if your claim stands up to scrutiny, the story is unpalatable for Western consumption. How many Westerners believe in handing their daughters over to a mob for ‘marriage’ to be the right thing?”
Are you saying the Biblical version is more acceptable to Westerners? Unlike in the Islamic version, Lot has incestuous sexual relations with his daughter. The other difference is that he attempts to give his daughters to the men without any regard for marriage. Personally, I think every sane person would agree that the Islamic Lot is better than his Judeo-Christian counterpart.
March 21st, 2011 at 2:50 pm
NassirH,
Lot(as) “offering up his daughters” is markedly different from Lot(as)”offering up his daughters for marriage”!
Allahu A’lam
March 21st, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Dawood has already thoroughly refuted Bob regarding Al-Khidr.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/09/islam-and-the-media-in-the-age-of-islamophobiapalooza/#comment-44750
March 21st, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Sigh, there’s nothing in the Koran that says Lot offered his daughters to a mob of men for marriage.
You can’t just say something and expect it to be true.
March 21st, 2011 at 3:02 pm
“the story is unpalatable for Western consumption.”
WTH? So having sex with your daughters is? This is all in response to Abdul Halim’s comment where he noted that the Quran does not contain the story of incest. You have yet to address that story. Actually let’s remember the real point of the article, something that you have ignored entirely (I wonder why?)
Be honest, what’s worse: having sex with your daughter or offering their hand in marriage to a man who engages in homosexuality?
I was LOLing at your claim that they were “ravenous”. They had lost their lust for women and were chasing men, so they would only be ravenous if Lot had offered a son instead. So they wouldn’t be “ravenous” towards the women. And it wouldn’t be a mass marriage of the mob to their daughters, *duh* that’s not possible. It’s clear that Lot offered his daughters out of desperation (he obviously knew that he can’t get a whole mob of people who no longer feel attracted to women to stop their homosexuality by offering two daughters) and didn’t really think it would work. His intention, as God’s prophet, was to ensure that the people stop doing things that would earn the wrath of God and he desperately tried to do so.
March 21st, 2011 at 3:08 pm
WTH? So having sex with your daughters is?
No, and it’s not supposed to be, either. But the silver lining in that story (if you can call it one) was that Lot’s daughters made the decision to have sex with their father and they did so by making Lot drunk.
That’s slightly different from a sober Lot telling his daughters to go ‘marry’ (wink, wink) a mob of men without any consent from their part.
So I would say the story, which is recorded in both the Bible and Koran, of Lot offering his daughters up to a vile mob of hedonists is far worse than an inebriated Lot being taken advantage of by his daughters.
March 21st, 2011 at 3:08 pm
“Sigh, there’s nothing in the Koran that says Lot offered his daughters to a mob of men for marriage.”
Sure. Let’s just ignore that when Muslims actually read the passage they understand the offering of the daughters to mean that he is offering the people a chance to marry his daughters. It’s Tafsir Al-JihadBob all over again…
15:71
“(Lot) said: “These (the girls of the nation) are my daughters (to marry lawfully), if you must act (so).”
I just don’t see where it says that the daughters are for marriage. I just don’t.
March 21st, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Oh boy, I just noticed this doozie:
“I once had a discussion with a Dawagondist whom I caught lifting Bible verses from a Muslim missionary website. It was because he relied on missionary websites for his information on Christianity that I was able to catch him on the most basic errors regarding Christian history and the Bible. Unfortunately, our Dawagondadist wasn’t the least bit fazed after he repeatedly attributed a quote from an Epistle to Jesus. He was unable to register his fundamental mistake of the Bible because he relied on websites so much that he did not even understand the differences between the Epistles and Gospels. From my interaction with Muslims, they all seem to believe every book of the New Testament is a Gospel save, perhaps, the Book of Revelation.”
For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that this story is true and that Bob isn’t bluffing. As anyone who has seen Bob’s comments can tell, the above is dripping with hypocrisy. It’s actually quite disturbing how much hypocrisy and projection Bob has managed to fit into a paragraph. Although I’m no fan of him, I must say that Bob has amazingly outdone himself in lunacy and I’m confident he will continue to do so in the future.
First, he scolds a Mooslim for not using neutral sources. Ironically, Bob has linked to anti-Muslim, polemical websites like Answering Islam and JihadWatch—both known for making the “most basic errors regarding” Islamic history and the Qur’an. Then Bob whines that the likely non-existent Muslim was “unfazed” after he nobly rebutted his heathen lies against the true faith of Christianity. Of course, this is also ironic. Bob is known for completely rejecting all evidence that contradicts his views, no matter how overwhelming. His repeated invocation of some random bigot on the internet (Narnian) in favor of numerous Tafsirs is a case in point.
March 21st, 2011 at 3:14 pm
and didn’t really think it would work.
How do you know what Lot was thinking and how did Lot know the sexual desires of every man in that mob?
Did he take a straw count to determine that every man was a homosexual repulsed at the sight of women? Did he get lucky that there were no bisexuals in the crowd?
Was Lot unaware of the practices of some cultures in the Ancient world to have a wife but also have relations with men and boys?
You’re making quite a lot of assumptions. I just hope you’re not trying to convince yourself more than you are me.
March 21st, 2011 at 3:15 pm
“That’s slightly different from a sober Lot telling his daughters to go ‘marry’ (wink, wink) a mob of men without any consent from their part.”
“ 6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.””
Genesis 19: 6-8
LOL!
March 21st, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Whoosh! That’s the sound of my comment flying over your head.
March 21st, 2011 at 3:30 pm
^LOL Give it up JB!
March 21st, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Looks like both our scriptures have the same event, perhaps you can justify it as well, since we are now in the same boat.
Well, actually, the interpreters of the Quran clearly see the event as referring to marriage. And my claim that they lost their lust for women was not an assumption. Observe:
Quran 7:81
“Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.”
March 21st, 2011 at 3:31 pm
justbob:
Or should I call you mansubzero, ‘rambo’?
both names belong to the same person.
March 21st, 2011 at 3:35 pm
“No, and it’s not supposed to be, either. But the silver lining in that story (if you can call it one) was that Lot’s daughters made the decision to have sex with their father and they did so by making Lot drunk.”
god sent angels to destroy the faggots, but god didn’t send an angel to prevent incest? this is how your god works?
March 21st, 2011 at 3:41 pm
“Rambo, posing as a Jew to attack Christians. That’s pretty funny.”
posing as a jew?
March 21st, 2011 at 3:43 pm
“…‘rambo’ was banned for his disgusting remarks but somehow managed to change his IP address and post again.”
conspiracy theorist, i didn’t change my ip address.
March 21st, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Mosizzle, two of the six Muslim translators inserts the word ‘marriage’ into the verse. That hardly proves that Muslims understand Lot to mean he was offering his daughter up for marriage, especially when one of the translators, Yusuf Ali, has translated other passages of the Koran based on his understanding of modern science, to make the Koran appear miraculous.
http://qb.gomen.org/QuranBrowser/cgi/bin/get.cgi
That Lot ‘knew’ his daughters would be rejected by the mob could be said of the Bible, too, since Genesis presents the mob of men as sodomists, etc.
Thirdly, the alternative interpretation that Lot offers his daughters to an unruly mob of men for marriage (assuming somehow his two daughters could satiate the lustful desires of a mob – and quickly) STILL falls short of modern conceptions of justice and ethics. What kind of screening process is that? Who lets their children be taken in marriage to a group of savages? Are arranged marriages of this type to be followed for all times?
March 21st, 2011 at 3:45 pm
It’s funny really, JustBob has managed to derail the whole comments section and hopefully some of you have realized that. He is clearly holding his hands over his ears and creating fallacious arguments that ignore every point that you guys raise. This article will never bring truth to people like him, because they just cannot accept it and instead try to point at “this” or “that” and say blindly “YOU’RE WRONG!” Let’s just ignore him because the truth is he will most likely never change, and as much as we want to help, it won’t do anything.
March 21st, 2011 at 3:46 pm
god sent angels to destroy the faggots, but god didn’t send an angel to prevent incest? this is how your god works?
Thanks for proving you’re not Jewish, rambo.
You’re an anti-Semite, a Christianophobe and a Homophobe.
March 21st, 2011 at 3:59 pm
This is rich. Bob is criticizing a story that occurs in the Qur’an that occurs in far less acceptable form in the Bible. This is a classic case of calling the kettle black, which of course of JihadBob’s modus operandi.
“Mosizzle, two of the six Muslim translators inserts the word ‘marriage’ into the verse. That hardly proves that Muslims understand Lot to mean he was offering his daughter up for marriage, especially when one of the translators, Yusuf Ali, has translated other passages of the Koran based on his understanding of modern science, to make the Koran appear miraculous.”
Let’s check to Tafisrs, shall we?
“And his people, when they became aware of them, came to him, running, hastening, towards him — and previously, before they came, they had been committing abominations, namely, penetrative sexual intercourse with men. He, Lot, said, ‘O my people! Here are my daughters, marry with them; they are purer for you. So fear God, and do not degrade me, [do not] disgrace me, before my guests. Is there not among you any upright man?’, to enjoin decency and forbid indecency?”
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=11&tAyahNo=78&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2
“That Lot ‘knew’ his daughters would be rejected by the mob could be said of the Bible, too, since Genesis presents the mob of men as sodomists, etc.”
You’re making quite a lot of assumptions. I just hope you’re not trying to convince yourself more than you are me.
March 21st, 2011 at 4:07 pm
“Mosizzle, two of the six Muslim translators inserts the word ‘marriage’ into the verse. That hardly proves that Muslims understand Lot to mean he was offering his daughter up for marriage, especially when one of the translators, Yusuf Ali, has translated other passages of the Koran based on his understanding of modern science, to make the Koran appear miraculous.”
You’re speaking of verse 15: 71, correct? Most of the translations I checked insert marriage (in one form or another) into to the verse in question.
[Lot] said, “These are my daughters – if you would be doers [of lawful marriage].” (Sahih International)
[Lout (Lot)] said: “These (the girls of the nation) are my daughters (to marry lawfully), if you must act (so).” (Muhsin Khan)
He said: “There are my daughters (to marry), if ye must act (so).” (Yusuf Ali)
He said, “These are my daughters (to marry), if you would be performing (that).” (Dr. Ghali)
March 21st, 2011 at 4:10 pm
“You’re an anti-Semite, a Christianophobe and a Homophobe.”
I suppose if he was also an Islamophobe your opinion of him would be radically different.
March 21st, 2011 at 4:15 pm
JustBob,
“Whoosh! That’s the sound of my comment flying over your head.”
More projection! That’s actually Mosizzle’s comment going over *your* head.
“So I would say the story, which is recorded in both the Bible and Koran, of Lot offering his daughters up to a vile mob of hedonists is far worse than an inebriated Lot being taken advantage of by his daughters.”
Only in the Biblical story is he offering up his daughters for sex(rape), but you need to equate the stories(Biblical and Quranic), simply because you cannot deny that the Bible story is horrible. You move goalposts quite nicely. Wasn’t Isa talking about how the story of incest is not found in the Qur’an?
“How do you know what Lot was thinking and how did Lot know the sexual desires of every man in that mob?”
Hint: it’s not the same way he knows the verse isn’t about offering up his daughters to be raped….
“Did he take a straw count to determine that every man was a homosexual repulsed at the sight of women? Did he get lucky that there were no bisexuals in the crowd?..Was Lot unaware of the practices of some cultures in the Ancient world to have a wife but also have relations with men and boys?…You’re making quite a lot of assumptions.”
It seems that your are the only one making assumptions.
“So you’re saying Lot offered his daughters to a mob of ravenous men to marry?”
“Sigh, there’s nothing in the Koran that says Lot offered his daughters to a mob of men for marriage.”
In light of this statement of mine:”Lot(as) “offering up his daughters” is markedly different from Lot(as)”offering up his daughters for marriage””!, let’s look at some actual tafsir:
———————————–
1.Ibn Kathir
Concerning the statement,
(and since aforetime they used to commit crimes.) This means that this did not cease being their behavior until they were seized (by Allah’s torment) and they were still in the same condition.
(He said: “O my people! Here are my daughters (the women of the nation), they are purer for you…”) This was his attempt to direct them to their women, for verily the Prophet is like a father for his nation. Therefore, he tries to guide them to that which is better for them in this life and the Hereafter. This is similar to his statement to them in another verse,
(Go you in unto the males of the nation, and leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your wives Nay, you are a trespassing people!)[26:165-166] Allah said in another verse,
(They (the people of the city) said: “Did we not forbid you from entertaining any of the `Alamin”)[15:70] This means, “Didn’t we forbid you from hosting men (male) guests”
([Lut] said: “These (the girls of the nation) are my daughters, if you must act (so).” Verily, by your life, in their wild intoxication, they were wandering blindly.)[15:71-72] Then, Allah said, in this noble verse,
(Here are my daughters, they are purer for you.) Mujahid said, “Actually, they were not his daughters, but they were from among his nation. Every Prophet is like a father to his nation.” A similar statement has been reported from Qatadah and others. Concerning the statement,
(So have Taqwa of Allah and disgrace me not with regard to my guests!) This means, “Accept what I command you by limiting the fulfillment of your desires to your women.”
(Is there not among you a single right-minded man) This means, “Is there not a good man among you who will accept what I am enjoining upon you and abandon what I have forbidden for you”
(They said: “Surely, you know that we have no need of your daughters…”) This means, “Verily, you know that we do not want our women, nor do we desire them.”
(and indeed you know well what we want!) This means, “We only want males and you know that. So what need is there for you to continue speaking to us about this” (Tafsir of Ibn Kathir)
2.Tabari
“Narrated by Qutada: Allah’s Messenger Lot commanded the people to marry women. (Tafsir Tabari, Commentary on Surah 15:71)
3. Tafsir Jalalayn
“And his people, when they became aware of them, came to him, running, hastening, towards him – and previously, before they came, they had been committing abominations, namely, penetrative sexual intercourse with men. He, Lot, said, ‘O my people! Here are my daughters, marry with them; they are purer for you. So fear God, and do not degrade me, [do not] disgrace me, before my guests. Is there not among you any upright man?’, to enjoin decency and forbid indecency?” (Tafsir Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 11:78)
He said, ‘These here are my daughters, if you must be doing’, what you desire [to do] in the way of satisfying your lust, then marry them. God, exalted be He, says: (Tafsir Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 15:71)
4. Qurtubi also says the same thing in his commentary on Surah 11:78 and Surah 15:71, namely that Prophet Lot meant that the men should go and marry the women of his tribe.
——————————-
And don’t think that this doozie went unnoticed:
“(and the Koran does allow relations between men and women outside of marriage, but that’s another story)”
You are definitely following my manual, shifting goalposts and throwing out as many claims as possible to offer distraction from the issues at hand.Your hypocrisy knows no bounds and you will go to any length to avoid admitting where the Bible sounds worse than the Qur’an
Allahu A’lam
March 21st, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds and you will go to any length to avoid admitting where the Bible sounds worse than the Qur’an.
I’m sure many will wholeheartedly agree with this comment, including Philip Jenkins who said “Jews and Christians…so ignore their own scriptures that they become self-righteous [towards Islam and Muslims].”
March 21st, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Ouch. Muhammad abd al haq and NassirH hit Bob where it hurts.
I guess this just ends the discussion, really:
“Narrated by Qutada: Allah’s Messenger Lot commanded the people to marry women. (Tafsir Tabari, Commentary on Surah 15:71)”
I would go on longer but I want to just remind people. This all started when Abdul Haleem mentioned (correctly) that the Quran does not contain some of the stories from the Bible such as the incestuous relationship. Rather than discuss this, Bob, tried to change the subject. He thought that he would find an equally objectionable story in the Quran and the two would just cancel out. However, this argument came crashing down when I decided to read Genesis and lo and behold, the same story was there.
So to sum up, Bible contains both incest and Lot offering women for marriage. Quran contains just the second one. Bob’s point has been nullified.
Bob is trying to talk about the ethics of that story, but clearly, God has put both stories in our scriptures. So if Bob has a problem he should take it up with Him.
Bob mocked me when I claimed that Lot knew his offer was futile. But notice the change of tune as soon as Bob is reminded that the same story is in the Bible:
“That Lot ‘knew’ his daughters would be rejected by the mob could be said of the Bible, too”
I also mentioned that obviously Lot knew that 2 women wouldn’t be enough to stop the advance of the mob anyway. But Bob ignored this at first. But now says the same thing after he realises that the same story is in the Bible.
March 21st, 2011 at 4:31 pm
“Are arranged marriages of this type to be followed for all times?”
I don’t know about a similar thing said by Jesus but the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was clear that the women’s consent is essetial:
“A [girl who was not married] came to the Messenger of God and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet allowed her to exercise her choice.” (Abu Da’ud, on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas)
Also, the man and woman are allowed to meet:
“Go and look at her (the woman you are considering marrying) because this will help your time together to be strengthened. “(Ahmad)
March 21st, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Evening,
It seems that you miss the time factor. Torah was written 3500 years ago. 2000 years before the Quran was created and 1500 years before the New Testament was compiled. The New Testament is a different type of document entirely from the other two which are complete books. The NT is a collection of seperate cannons produced separately then joined at a later date.
If I recall correctly the NT has 33(ish) Cannons and this number was decided by the early Church at Constantinoble(Turkey) and each Cannon was assessed and included or declared forbidden from an original of over 50 cannons.
You are also misunderstanding the Founding Fathers of the United States and their complaints about religious practise.
You would gather a lot of insight if you were to do some research into the “Enlightenment in Europe” “Calvinism” “Protestantism” “Christian Reformation”
Basically for hundreds of years we killed each other over method of observance and interpretation of belief much in the same way Muslims do at the moment in the middle east. The religious practices were “Reformed” by the Protest-ant movement who Protested at much of the practise of the Christian church, the manipulation of religious rulings to maintain power for certain families, states. The reasons for wars, etc. etc. (Can you see the similarity)
After the Reformation and Enlightenment with society no longer being held back by religious rulings. Science, laws, social order and cultural development were able to flourish and we conquered the whole world.
Northern Ireland Explained – Very quickly and in brief summary
There are still divisions in the UK from the last changes in 1689. The Rightful King of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland with a history going back over 1000 years and more unbroken bloodline. The King was a Catholic and was deposed by his daughter and her Husband William from Netherlands. Many battles followed the King fled. William died and instead of the Monarchy passing to next in line (Oldest Male of Bloodline) it passed to 52 in line who was first Protestant and a foreigner from Germany called George 1. More wars in Scotland and Ireland,to try to reinstate King.
To this day the Troubles of Northern Ireland stem from this time. When the Protestant German, replaced the Gaelic Catholic King who was the rightful King by all the laws except the law of the sword.
The UK then sent many Protestant Scots and English to live there and rule over the Catholic Irish (Iraq Sunni/Shia comparison) It is not just religion, it is culture, monarchy, race and religion.
People are people. Teach them hate and they hate. Teach them love and they love. Tell them it is US against THEM and they will HATE THEM and make excuses for US.
It is not what is written in books written 1500-3500 years ago. It is about how we each live today in the here and now.
Are their Muslims who wish to have Religious Law to be the authority for order in the world. YES.
Are their Christians who wish to have Religious Law to be the authority for order in the world. YES.
Do the Muslims have the support of powerful governments and armed militias – Yes
Do the Christians have the support of powerful governments and armed militias = No
ACTIONS are what matters not WORDS
March 21st, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Yeah, flogging this dead horse is getting tiresome. I think even the horse is getting tired.
What we all can agree on is that the Koran does not use the word ‘marry’, ‘marriage’ when Lot is recorded in the story of offering his daughters to satiate a mob of lustful men.
One must decide whether that interpretation makes sense in light of the situation – would a marriage proposal of two women stop a rampaging mob?
Would anyone, for a second, think that?
I certainly applaud the mental gymnastics you’re willing to perform to make your interpretation logical for you. I’ll stay with the clear reading of the text since I don’t have the faith to believe such a remarkable interpretation.
It should be interesting when non-Muslims read these passages and consider the arguments and give their opinion as to what Lot did.
I also don’t see the logic behind the interpretation that Lot merely offered his daughters to the mob but knew the mob would refuse. So then why did Lot offer his daughters in the first place?
The mind boggles at these quaint views. But bravo to the mental acrobatics being performed.
March 21st, 2011 at 6:02 pm
“One must decide whether that interpretation makes sense in light of the situation – would a marriage proposal of two women stop a rampaging mob?”
When are you releasing your own Tafsir, Bob? You seem to have more knowledge than all the past scholars of Islam for 1400 years. You only ignore the Muslim’s interpretations of the verse because you would rather project your own flawed understanding upon to the text. Regardless, all major Tafsir find the command to have referred to a marriage.
It is also clear that you didn’t read my comment. I said that a marriage wouldn’t stop a mob. This proves that Lot didn’t intend that the deal would actually happen. He only did so out of desperation, as a last attempt to save the people from God’s punishment. This was the last minute to act, the mob was at the door ready to rape the men inside. So Lot had to do something, as the Prophet of God appointed to guide the men to the straight path (no pun intended) — so that he could at least tell God that he tried.
“I certainly applaud the mental gymnastics you’re willing to perform to make your interpretation logical for you. ”
Please explain to me how you, as a Christian, interpret this story. You are in the same situation as me, except that the Islamic tradition makes it clear that marriage is implied yet the Christian tradition does not. I don’t have to make it seem logical. To me it is logical. At least far more logical than God appointing a man who condones rapes and sleeps with his daughters. In what bizarre world would Josef Fritzl be a Prophet of God?
“I’ll stay with the clear reading of the text since I don’t have the faith to believe such a remarkable interpretation.”
But you have the faith to admit that one of God’s appointed men could have offered his daughters to a “ravenous” mob to do ‘whatever they want’ and that he could have slept with them? If you go for a clear reading of the text, no interpretation, you have to believe this.
“So then why did Lot offer his daughters in the first place?”
See above.
March 21st, 2011 at 6:02 pm
JahilBob,
You are definitely a skilled sophist, i give you that. Flogging a dead horse while advocating that we stop doing it?
“What we all can agree on is that the Koran does not use the word ‘marry’, ‘marriage’ when Lot is recorded in the story of offering his daughters to satiate a mob of lustful men.”
You really don’t understand Islamic tradition at all, and you display it fully when you attempt your own little tafsir according to the “plain meaning of the text”. You should read up on juristic methodology, principles of jurisprudence, Quranic exegesis, and science of hadith before you comment. If you did then you would know that one of the principles of Quranic exegesis is “Qur’an explains Qur’an”. Here is why Muslim translators “insert” the word “marriage” in the verse and why all the tafsir destroy your argument:
The story of Lot(as) is not only found in the two aforementioned verses.
(Qur’an 26:165-166):
Do you come to the males from among the creatures
And leave your wives whom your Lord has created for you? Nay you are a people exceeding the limits.
The other verses must be understood in this light. From this we get a picture not of Lot(as) offering up his daughters for anything(sex,rape, marriage),but using the example of his “daughters” as legitimate mates, to tell the men of the city to have sex with women, in a marital relationship. The rest of your post is your typical hypocrisy and projection.
“One must decide whether that interpretation makes sense in light of the situation – would a marriage proposal of two women stop a rampaging mob?
…Would anyone, for a second, think that?”
It wasn’t a marriage proposal, you’re doing your own tafsir again.
“I certainly applaud the mental gymnastics you’re willing to perform to make your interpretation logical for you. I’ll stay with the clear reading of the text since I don’t have the faith to believe such a remarkable interpretation.”
Someone who believes that a Prophet of God got so drunk that he was vulnerable to seduction by his own daughters,and that his daughters actually contemplated and went through said seduction, finds it hard to believe what Muslims say about their own scripture?! You don’t say! I will leave it to readers to decide which story’s interpretation is a result of mental gymnastics. You have a lot of more faith than you proclaim. You have enough faith to justify everything in the Bible, no matter how horrible it sounds. You have enough faith to be sure that your interpretation of Islam is correct in the face actual Muslims contradicting your claims.
“It should be interesting when non-Muslims read these passages and consider the arguments and give their opinion as to what Lot did.”
Without being rooted in the Islamic tradition, their opinions, like yours, will be just that; opinions. It will not necessarily reflect what Muslims actually believe about our texts.
Allahu A’lam
March 21st, 2011 at 6:16 pm
your article proves nothing.
all religions are the same, because they were all started by men.
religion denies the power of God.
God does not belong to any religion.
….and so what if God told his prophets to go and kill…there was a reason for it, so get over it.
…what you don’t quote is that Gods love is as same as his wrath….how much love has God got?…that the same measure of his wrath.
so all this rubbish about my religion is better than yours is a waste of time.
look what religions have caused…war, famines, deaths (spanish inquistion) killed millions….and will continue to do so
answer me this please….what has God got to do with the stupidity and evil of men?…yet they say we do it in Gods name….rubbish.
March 21st, 2011 at 6:23 pm
I find it hilarious that Bob is suggesting that we listen to him regarding the Qur’an rather than Qurtubi, Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti, Ibn Kathir, and Tabari. They certainly know more about the Qur’an, Arabic, and Sunnah than him or any other Islamophobe. This guy obviously thinks too highly of himself! Maybe he’s a bit like Spencer, a little man who suffers from a Napoleon complex.
March 21st, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Boy, when I mentioned Islamophobe I wasn’t expecting mister sarcy-pants.Just what is your problem exactly?
March 21st, 2011 at 6:37 pm
“It should be interesting when non-Muslims read these passages and consider the arguments and give their opinion as to what Lot did.”
Indeed:
“An incident just before the destruction of Sodom has caused many to look at Lot with revulsion – his offering of his two young daughters to the evil mob.
Did Lot really mean it? Would he really have handed his two daughters over to the mob? Or, was it intended as some sort of a diversionary tactic, an offer that would not be accepted, because he knew that those men had no interest in women? That could be a possibility to consider, in view of the mob’s response – they continued to ignore the two daughters, and decided to assault Lot along with the two men/angels. (Genesis 19:9)”
Source: keyway canada
A Jewish site offers a more bizarre explanation:
“At first, Lot is downright heroic: he goes outside his house, closes the door behind him, and implores the crowd “don’t do this to my guests;” but then he immediately, cowardly, offers to the crowd – those wolves – his innocent daughters to “do to them as you please.” Can it be that Lot actually values hospitality over his daughters’ innocence? I don’t think so. I think Lot offered his daughters not to protect his guests so much as to protect himself. He did so to preserve good relations with his neighbors as well as with the strangers in his home. After all, he had moved to Sodom, drawn by its wealth, with the intent of acquiring wealth himself. He would not be able to do this without maintaining good relations with his neighbors, and with any traveling merchants with whom he might find himself interacting. Daughters in those days were not revenue generating. Even if they married well, they would not necessarily have been obligated to see to Lot in his old age.”
Lovely stuff from site beth-elsa.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says that Lot made a mistake. *Whoops*
I don’t know what denomination you are, but from past conversations it seems you are Catholic (forgive me if I am wrong). But this is Haydock’s Catholic Commentary, 1859 on Genesis 19:
“Lot tries by every means to divert them from their purpose; being well assured, that they would have nothing to do with his daughters, who were promised to some of the inhabitants. He endeavours to gain time, hoping perhaps that his guests would escape by some back way, while he is talking to the people.”
A whole range of responses there from absolutely random sources that I found on Google. But it was you who pondered that my explanation was rubbish and that it would be interesting what non-Muslims make of the situation. You now have a range of responses. The most logical of which correspond with my explanation. And the rest contradict each other.
March 21st, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Alastair,
“It seems that you miss the time factor. Torah was written 3500 years ago. 2000 years before the Quran was created and 1500 years before the New Testament was compiled.”
No disrespect but it seems you missed the disclaimers for this article series.
“It is not what is written in books written 1500-3500 years ago. It is about how we each live today in the here and now.”
These two statements do not go together if we are talking about groups of people who live their lives according to what *is* in millenia old books. What is in those books become relevant.
“Are their Muslims who wish to have Religious Law to be the authority for order in the world. YES.”
I get that you are against religious law being the authority in the world, and i can show you that all laws that give justice, peace, tolerance, love, security to the world are religion-based, but that is besides the point. Can you please explain what you mean by this?:
“Science, laws, social order and cultural development were able to flourish and we conquered the whole world.”
“Do the Christians have the support of powerful governments and armed militias = No”
If you actually think that some people in Western militaries are not on some crusade to “civilize” the world, or that many in the US military in particular are not giving “fundamentalist Christians” armed support to carry out their crusades into the Muslim world, then…I don’t know what to tell ya.
“ACTIONS are what matters not WORDS”
Words can incite/encourage actions, so they have equal importance, in my view. In other words i don’t understand your point or your objections.
Allahu A’lam
March 21st, 2011 at 11:00 pm
I’m not sure if Bob realizes or not but the “daughters” that Lot refers to in the Quran are metaphorical; ie: the women of the land as evidenced by the various tafsir. Whereas the ones referred to in the Bible are the same two described as practically raping their father.
By the way Bob, when is The Abridged Tafsir of JihadBob going to hit stores?
March 21st, 2011 at 11:40 pm
JustBob,
I can’t believe i missed this earlier!
“Mosizzle, two of the six Muslim translators inserts the word ‘marriage’ into the verse. That hardly proves that Muslims understand Lot to mean he was offering his daughter up for marriage, especially…”
What? How so? Which two out of six Muslim translators? Besides there aren’t only six Muslim translators in the world who have translations of the Qur’an. I have 20 on my computer alone. And let’s not forget the tafsir. I think it can be firmly established that the verse refers to marriage, but not in the sense of offering up his own daughters, but commanding the men to move away from lewdness and marry women instead.And that is how the majority of Muslims see it.
And why would you even refer to Muslim translators and tafsir if you only intend to discount what they say and do your own tafsir anyway? I think you are simply trying to equate the Biblical and Qur’an account in your latest disguised tu quouque argument in order to avoid admitting that the Biblical account is worse.
Where were we again? Ah…Samson, the “suicide bomber”? Let’s deal with that sahll we Bob. Staying on topic might actually be better for you here since you have been thoroughly trashed on your other points. And don’t think i didn’t notice your inability to back up your claim that Qur’an allows sex outside of marriage, or that you ran to a thread first posted in late 2010, calling it an abomination, instead of admitting defeat here.
Allahu A’lam
March 21st, 2011 at 11:45 pm
*shall
Allahu A’lam
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:48 am
“I’m not sure if Bob realizes or not but the “daughters” that Lot refers to in the Quran are metaphorical; ie: the women of the land as evidenced by the various tafsir.”
Hmm. You seem to be right. I was mixing up the Biblical commentary and Tafsirs that I was reading at the same time.
In which case, this whole thing has been a pointless argument. Bob owes me an hour.
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:46 am
Mosizzle,
I think Muhammad ‘Abd-al Haqq explained it quite eloquently…with relevant quotes from the tafsir.
March 22nd, 2011 at 4:42 am
DefenderofIslam: “Jack, this is a little bit of a random and a little offtopic question. How does god killing himself save humanity in christian belief?”
That is way off topic, and it would take way to far to describe all the different strands of thought that come together in that particular doctrine. You might want to try to get a hold of Alister E. McGrath’s “Iustitia Dei. A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification”, (1995 or 2005 edition) for some background in the historical development of the Christian doctrine of Justificaton. Or have a take at the eleventh century st. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo.
Garo: First of all, I’m not a Christian any longer, so it’s not really my problem. I merely explained how most Christians read their bibles. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. Second of all, “that these were especially hard times” wasn’t the only argument I mentioned, not by a long shot. Third: you don’t have to tell me that Right-Wing Christian evangelical leaders are crazies. I already know that. Besides, throughout history Christian leaders have reverted back to the Old Testament when it suited them and cited David and Jonathan.
Oliver Cromwell (1599 – 1658) justified his wars by quoting the Bible. He even distributed a “Soldiers Bible”, to boost morale, mostly quoting verses from the Old Testament about righteous slaughter.
However, we weren’t talking about Christians from the sixteenth century or about the Christian Right, who are plain fascists if you ask me, but how schmansy pansy Christians square killings in the bible and the trespassings of the biblical heroes of faith with their notions of a loving god and the righteousness of biblical role models. I merely explained how the average modern day Christian does that.
March 22nd, 2011 at 6:31 am
The Qur’aan used the word athara
he said these banaat are athara for the people.
this word is from the ta ha ra root whcih means clean physically and (i think) spiritually.
you really think that they are athara for fornication? you are an idiot.
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:37 am
Haha i love reading comments of Christian apologists!
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:59 pm
atharu
March 22nd, 2011 at 4:59 pm
“Regardless of issues surrounding historicity, what is quite clear is that the Bible glorifies genocide and the killing of civilians, whereas the Quran does not.”
First of all that is merely a reason to reject religion in general; religious texts are outdated poorly written fiction. Also the biblical you mention has a clear pseudo historical context and there is the matter of Christ’s teachings to be considered, violent verses in the Quran have no pseudo historical context since the Quran is a book out of context; it isn’t a narrative it is a collection of random verses.
March 22nd, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Percey
“First of all that is merely a reason to reject religion in general;”
What?! why are you such a fan of non-sequiturs? Re-read what you are objecting to. If the Bible glorifies genocide and killing of civilians, then that is a reason to reject the Bible in particular, not all religion in general. Besides, how does lack of historicity make for a good argument against religion?
“religious texts are outdated poorly written fiction. Also the biblical you mention has a clear pseudo historical context and there is the matter of Christ’s teachings to be considered, violent verses in the Quran have no pseudo historical context since the Quran is a book out of context; it isn’t a narrative it is a collection of random verses.”
Like i told you in the other thread, we understand that you are not a fan of religion or religious laws being the law of the land, but you have no right to make blanket unsubstantiated statements, drive-by fashion; especially statements that *cannot* be substantiated. Verses in Qur’an lack historical context?! You really think lack of pseudo-historical context equals no context, ie no historical context? You really think the Qur’an has no narrative, that it’s a collection of *random* verses? Prove it all if you can
Allahu A’lam
March 22nd, 2011 at 8:31 pm
The Koran does lack historical context and the reader is reliant on other texts, namely the Bible, to understand the lives of a number of figures, including major ones such as Moses.
March 22nd, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Wow, you guys really spun story of Lot to the breaking point. Now the story of Lot offering his daughters to a hedonistic mob (for ‘marriage’, wink wink) is to be viewed metaphorically.
Sigh.
March 22nd, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Why are you enraged at the Tafsirs, Bob? It’s not our fault that they contradict your claims. Can’t you just get over the fact that you were palpably wrong and stop spamming this thread with inane comments. It’s become evident that the reason you post here is because you’re furious at Danios for writing about Christianity and the Bible.
March 22nd, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Also, you can’t read Arabic so when you claim erroneously that “you’re just going by what the Qur’an says” it’s nothing but hot air. The fact is that Muslims don’t interpret the Qur’an the way you do, and no amount of whining will change that.
March 22nd, 2011 at 8:49 pm
“The Koran does lack historical context and the reader is reliant on other texts, namely the Bible, to understand the lives of a number of figures, including major ones such as Moses.”
Is this true? I recall that Muslims used the numerous Ahadith for context, as they contain narratives about the Prophets. Please provide evidence that Mufassirs have used the Bible to understand the Qur’an, or I will forced to dismiss your claim as nothing rantings and ravings of an angry loon.
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:06 pm
JihadBob, it’s all in the tafsir. Nobody is spinning anything but yourself.
In the words of Ibn Kathir:
(He said: “O my people! Here are my daughters (the women of the nation), they are purer for you…”) This was his attempt to direct them to their women, for verily the Prophet is like a father for his nation. Therefore, he tries to guide them to that which is better for them in this life and the Hereafter. This is similar to his statement to them in another verse,
Plain English Bob, deal with it.
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:17 pm
SideShowBob! Anti-Bart and Anti-Islam but fails at every attempt to destroy both! Hehehe…
Wait a minute…Sideshow Bob’s real name is Robert Underdunk Terwilliger…Robert! Robert Spencer!!! There it is…arghhhh such a deep conspiracy…and Terwilliger! Shariah is somewhere in that conspiracy but i’m too lazy to go in depth.
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:42 pm
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JahilBob is such a sore loser1 Now he has misrepresented what I, Cynic, Mosizzle, and NassirH have said just to save face to make it seem like he won some argument!
“Wow, you guys really spun story of Lot to the breaking point. Now the story of Lot offering his daughters to a hedonistic mob (for ‘marriage’, wink wink) is to be viewed metaphorically.”
First, no one claimed that the story was to be taken metaphorically, but Cynic said that the daughters of Lot(as) were not his literal, biological daughters, as the real tafsir also show. You should re-read the Bible where it is clear that the they
Second, I already told you that Lot(as) was not “offering up his daughters to the mob for anything(sex, rape, or marriage). He was commanding them to stop their lewdness and marry women instead. You think someone who can’t read Arabic can fool people into believing that your bogus tafsir is based on primary sources?
Just because many Muslim translators “inserted” the word “marriage” into the relevant verse, does not mean that Lot(as) was making a marriage proposal on behalf of his daughters as you deceptively suggest. Again,only in the Biblical story is he offering up his daughters for sex(rape), but you need to equate the stories(Biblical and Quranic), simply because you need to avoid admitting that the Bible story is horrible.
Quranic verses 15:71 and 11:78 need to be read in light of Qur’an 26:165-166:
(Qur’an 26:165-166)”Do you come to the males from among the creatures. And leave your wives whom your Lord has created for you? Nay you are a people exceeding the limits.”
That coupled with the tafsir, like this one:
“Narrated by Qutada: Allah’s Messenger Lot commanded the people to marry women. (Tafsir Tabari, Commentary on Surah 15:71)”
Makes it impossible to believe that Lot(as) was offering up his daughters for rape, or even marriage, literally or metaphorically. And don’t even get me started on the Hadith.
I am usually a nice person, after all I am Muslim, but you need to STFU on this particular topic now, Jahil. It’s over. Focus on the “suicide bomber Prophet”, according to Bible, and see if you can find a “suicide bomber Prophet” in the Qur’an or if any Hadith describe Muhammad(saws) as such. No more distractions.
Allahu A’lam
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:55 pm
*You should re-read the Bible where it is clear that the they
Should read:
You should re-read the Bible where it is clear that not only did the Lot of the Bible offer up his daughters for the mob to do with them whatever they saw fit, but Lot got so drunk that he had sex with said daughters, who themselves had conspired to get him drunk and have sex with him. None of this is in the Qur’an. So do you, Jahil, concede that the Biblical version is worse than the Quranic version?
Allahu A’lam
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:04 pm
“The Koran does lack historical context and the reader is reliant on other texts, namely the Bible, to understand the lives of a number of figures, including major ones such as Moses.”
Right. And what Biblical texts were the mufassir of the early centuries of Islam relying on to understand the Qur’an? You make these claims as if there is documented, authentic evidence that the Early Muslim community had access to these biblical documents, in Arabic.
Besides that your statement is actually an argument *for* the Qur’an having a historical context, unless you are actually agreeing with Percey that the Bible stories have a pseudo-historical context, not a real one. Is this your official position, as a Christian?
Allahu A’lam
March 23rd, 2011 at 12:35 am
JustBob:
“Now, does the Bible promise heavenly rewards for holy warriors who die whilst killing unbelievers?”
YES IT DOES>
Either you are lieing or you are ignorant and your behaviour in this thread implies the latter
Sexual paradise is plain as day in the opening of Genesis. The first is Genesis 6:1-4 and Numbers 13:33. These are nephilim, when biblical angels have sex with human women to give birth to giants. Hence clearly sexuality plays a strong role in biblical heaven
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:42 pm
So do you, Jahil, concede that the Biblical version is worse than the Quranic version?
Well, no because the story of Lot offering his daughters to a mob of men IS in the Koran.
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Schlomo, just quote the Biblical passage where warriors who die whilst killing non-believers are rewarded in the afterlife.
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:48 pm
“Well, no because the story of Lot offering his daughters to a mob of men IS in the Koran.”
But the fact that it exists in the Bible as well nullifies your original point that the Quranic representation of Lot is worse than the Bible.
March 23rd, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Actually, this all started when I was responding to Isa. I pointed out the tales in the Koran are not for people to follow or take moral guidance for today.
The other example I provided was a prophet of Allah (Allah gave the man the ability to foresee the future, so call that whatever you want) who murdered a boy because he feared the boy would dishonor his parents by becoming a disbeliever.
March 23rd, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Mosizzle, I think he wants the final word. He’s a sore loser, you know. Absolutely can’t stand the fact that brown people have disagreed with him since time immemorial, as evidenced by the Tafsirs he constantly contradicts.
March 23rd, 2011 at 5:20 pm
On JihadBob’s allergy to the tafsirs:
“Spencer’s readers are carefully steered away from all contact with the Islamic interpretative tradition, which equals or exceeds that of any other religion, because any scholarly knowledge about Islam would expose all his extremist interpretations to ridicule.” — Robert D. Crane
Also, Spencer has his own pseudo-Tafsir on his website.
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:49 pm
“just quote the Biblical passage where warriors who die whilst killing non-believers are rewarded in the afterlife.”
Well bob, one of the Popes seemed to think it did:
“If you die on the journey or if you are killed in battle against these Saracens all your sins will be forgiven at once. God Himself has given me the power to tell you this.” Pope Urban II’s sermon
And please note, the Qu’ran does not promise that, martyrdom is more than dieing killing unbelievers. Better add that to your Tafsir.
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Well, no because the story of Lot offering his daughters to a mob of men IS in the Koran.
Except that he wasn’t offering his real daughters, but instead was urging the men to marry the women of the land (ie: his daughters). Not to mention the story of him getting raped by his own daughters isn’t in the Quran. You failed miserably on this thread. Why don’t you just concede defeat like a man for once and stop wasting our time.
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Except that he wasn’t offering his real daughters,
He said: Here are my daughters, if ye must be doing (so).
Right…..
And please note, the Qu’ran does not promise that, martyrdom is more than dieing killing unbelievers. Better add that to your Tafsir.
So what does the Koran say about those who die killing non-believers?
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:04 pm
“He said: Here are my daughters, if ye must be doing (so).
Right…..”
Obviously you don’t want to see the Tafsir for an explanation of that verse because you would rather interpret it in your own way and attack Islam. Maybe I’ll do the same:
“I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword” [Matthe 10;34]
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Of course he can’t, it would sink the argument so it HAS TO NOT EXIST. Simple.
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:14 pm
As I said, the passage is clear, Lot is talking about his real daughters. There is no evidence presented in the Koran to show that those were his metaphorical daughters he was offering to a mob of strangers.
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Note how Bob only quotes the first half of Cynic’s sentence, truncating the part that mentions what’s in the Tafsir. It’s hard imagining having a rational conversation with someone who has filled their mind with as much hate as JihadBob. All he does is go in circles, and when rebutted, marches blindly forward. As Dawood explained on this thread, “It’s a Bot, regurgitating the same tired old stuff.”
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:19 pm
^ That’s one interpretation. The passage doesn’t lead me to believe that Lot was referring to his daughters in a metaphorical sense.
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:24 pm
“As I said, the passage is clear…”
Your opinion on that verse vs. the opinion of respected Islamic scholars who have interpreted the verse in that way for the past 1400 years.
Hmmm…
Ibn Kathir: “This was his attempt to direct them to their women, for verily the Prophet is like a father for his nation. Therefore, he tries to guide them to that which is better for them in this life and the Hereafter.”
Forget it, Bob, you are immune to reason. The fact is that the Bible contains the same story, so I fail to see what your point is. It is a story, like many others in the Quran. No one is told to base their actions on that one incident.
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:28 pm
As I said, it conflicts so thus CANNOT EXIST. Simple logic for simple people one things.
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Sorry Bob, but your interpretation of the Qur’an is insincere and warped by your immense hatred of Muslims. In other words, we care about what the mufassir of the past 1,400 years say about the Qur’an, not the opinion of some hateful troll.
March 23rd, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Bob,
Daughters = women of the land. Figurative speech. It isn’t rocket science.
You seem to have no problem busting out the tafsir when if seemingly agrees with your preconceived narrative (although it’s usually the exact opposite of it)…all of a sudden you’re rejecting them. Please carefully study the definition of bigotry, then self-reflect.
March 23rd, 2011 at 9:57 pm
@JustBob
“Actually, this all started when I was responding to Isa. I pointed out the tales in the Koran are not for people to follow or take moral guidance for today.”
On the contrary, Bob. The Quran still offers moral guidance for today. Like Chris Hedges, I don’t believe in the myth of moral progress. I believe 21st century dudes like Bob could learn a thing or two from 7th century dudes. . . like how to be morally consistent. If Bob’s delicate moral sensibilities aren’t offended by the following Biblical verse:
“Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof,” (Gen. 19:8).
how can it be offended by the following Quranic verse:
11:78 His people came rushing towards him, and were accustomed to committing sin. He said, “My people, these are my daughters, they are purer for you, so be aware of God and do not disgrace me regarding my guests. Is there no reasonable man among you?”
Bob claims to be oh-so-offended that the Quran says that Lot offered his daughters to be raped. That’s what the Bible says, however, not the Quran. Notice the subtle differences in the verses above. In the Quranic narration, Lot’s offer is insincere, and his people knew it. How do we know this? Because the very next verse (which always seem to be missing from Bob’s analysis) says so:
11:79 They said, “You know we have no interest in your daughters, and you are aware of what we want!”
“The other example I provided was a prophet of Allah (Allah gave the man the ability to foresee the future, so call that whatever you want) who murdered a boy because he feared the boy would dishonor his parents by becoming a disbeliever.”
And this is another example of you being morally inconsistent, Bob. If Bob’s moral sensibilities aren’t offended by the following Biblical verse:
When a group of children from Bethel taunted the prophet for his baldness, Elisha cursed them in the name of YHWH and two female bears came out of the forest and mauled 42 of them (2 Kings 2:23-25).
how can it be offended by the following Quranic verse:
18:74 So they ventured forth until they came upon a youth, and he killed him. He said, “Have you killed an innocent person without justice? You have truly come with something awful!”
Verses 18:65-80 is all about patience (sabr) and not jumping to conclusions. It’s moral guidance that ultra-modern dudes like Bob should take heed. Notice how Bob tries to tease his amusing “honor killing” interpretation from the verse, and jumps to the conclusion that the man was killed for dishonoring his parents by simply disbelieving. The Quran, however, tells us he was killed for his transgressions (tughyanan):
18:80 “As for the youth, his parents were those who acknowledge, so we feared that he would oppress them by his transgression and denial.”
He wasn’t killed for simply disbelieving, and he certainly wasn’t killed for making fun of Moses’ baldness. He was killed for his transgressions. Bob knows there is no capital punishment in Islam for simply disbelieving (despite what paranoid Islamophobes believe):
2:256 There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.
109:1-6 Say, “O you disbelievers. I do not worship what you worship. Nor do you worship what I worship. Nor will I ever worship what you worship. Nor will you ever worship what I worship. To you is your religion, and to me is my religion.”
Hopefully Bob will get the same moral guidance from this mysterious teacher that Moses got. But I’m not holding my breath. . .
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Thanks for your input, Michael Elwood.
It should be noted that Michael Elwood is a Qur’an only Muslim, since Bob was continuously claiming that he was sticking to “the clear reading of the text” (which of course is a fallacious assertion, as Bob can’t read a word of Arabic). Thus, both Qur’an only Muslims and more mainstream Muslims who go by both the Qur’an and Sunnah have interpretations that contradict Bob’s.
As for Bob’s moral sensibilities, he has none. His issue was not with the Prophet Lot, but with Islam and Muslims. He couldn’t care less about what Islam says about Lot.
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Nice post Mike.
March 23rd, 2011 at 11:41 pm
It’s funny because Lot in the Bible was really hoping for his daughters to be raped. Maybe he wanted revenge because they raped him? If that’s not morally screwed, then I don’t know what is.
Great post btw Michael.
March 24th, 2011 at 1:27 am
Perhaps, loonwatch could make a article on the oldest known neo-alQaeda group. Tamil tigers ? Irish ? No. Its religious, its judeo-xtian; and it goes back to the 1st century.
The Zealots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry
March 24th, 2011 at 8:31 am
vw polo
March 24th, 2011 at 8:36 am
elwoods:
Because the very next verse (which always seem to be missing from Bob’s analysis) says so:
11:79 They said, “You know we have no interest in your daughters, and you are aware of what we want!”
i looked at the ayah in arabic and saw the word “haqqin”
if i were to grab a girl and try to do what i please with her, someone might say, “you have no HAQQ over her”
meaning i have to haqq over her because i am not married to her.
but i think there is also another way to interpret the ayah which will kill your apologetic. your claim “Lot’s offer is insincere, and his people knew it”
but it is possible that his offer was SINCERE because he became too desperate, but deep down in his heart he knew that the faggots PREFERED /DESIRED/ want batty , not woman. so it hasn’t got anything to do with insincerety ,but preference.
March 24th, 2011 at 10:40 am
“Bob,
Daughters = women of the land. Figurative speech. It isn’t rocket science. ”
if you are familiar with christian apologetics , you will know how they try to reconcile contradictory passages in the bible. they will say something like ” the audience ALREADY knew that there was an EXCEPTION clause”
exception clause? according to mark, jesus says that WHOEVER divorces COMMITS adultery .
according to matthew, jesus says WHOEVER divorces except if it be for adultery, COMMITS adultery.
so i n matthews version, divorce is only ALLOWED if one partner commits adultery.
but this exception is not MENTIONED in marks VERSION
so apologists cook up a bull sh it assumption and assume that “the audience of mark ALREADY knew about the exception, so mark didn’t need to mention it.
such apologetic reasoning has been dealt with here
http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce11.html
all gayBob needs to do is APPLY his christian apologetic on the ayah about luut and his daughters and assume that the arab LISTNERS ALREADY KNEW THAT
DAUGHTERS = WOMEN OF THE LAND.
gaybob, all you got to do is stop being a phukin hypocrite.
March 24th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
boob :
“Who lets their children be taken in marriage to a group of savages?”
according to the bible, did lots daughters get pregnant?
March 24th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Me: “So do you, Jahil, concede that the Biblical version is worse than the Quranic version?”
Jahil:”Well, no because the story of Lot offering his daughters to a mob of men IS in the Koran.”
Whoa Whoa Whoa! You need to stop with the deception and sophistry!! The story of Lot(as) offering up his daughters to the mob is *not* in the Qur’an first of all!
Second: The question is in reference to this: “…Bible where it is clear that not only did the Lot of the Bible offer up his daughters for the mob to do with them whatever they saw fit, but Lot got so drunk that he had sex with said daughters, who themselves had conspired to get him drunk and have sex with him. None of this is in the Qur’an.”
You responded to my question with a subtle shift in topic(goalposts), even though the topic is relevant, which displays an almost diabolic penchant for misdirecting deceptiveness. The point is that Lot(as) having sex with his daughters(naudobillah) is not in Qur’an. Judging which story is worse is based on the Qur’an not containing that story. So Jahil,concede that the Biblical version is worse than the Quranic version.
“As I said, the passage is clear, Lot is talking about his real daughters. There is no evidence presented in the Koran to show that those were his metaphorical daughters he was offering to a mob of strangers.
There is actually plenty of evidence, albeit circumstantial, in English translation of the Qur;an, for those intelligent enough to be allergic to hate to see he was not offering up his biological daughters. But when we go to the Arabic, which we should, there is incontrovertible evidence in Qur’an that not only was he not referring to his biological daughters, but he wasn’t even offering up *these* daughters to a mob of strangers. Lot(as) was passing judgement on the evil of the men and suggesting that they *marry* women instead of raping men!!
Now, I wonder what would be the point of convincing Muslims, through Islamophobic interpretation, that we believe something that we do not? Could it be that people like you intuitively recognize how horrible the Biblical story is when compared to the Qur’an, and you need to equate them in order to avoid admitting this, so you concoct a ridiculous non-Muslim tafsir that ignores Islamic tradition, specifically the tafsir of the verse, and what Muslims actually believe about the story?
JahilBob would make a great professor of Islamic studies at my Islamophobic University:
Qualifications:
1.No knowledge of Arabic whatsoever.
2.No degree in any Islamic studies program from any accredited University
3. Must hate Arabs, Muslims, and Islam, but be able to hide it by couching his rhetoric in pseudo-intellectuallism.
“^ That’s one interpretation.”
Right. The MUSLIM INTERPRETATION!
” The passage doesn’t lead me to believe that Lot was referring to his daughters in a metaphorical sense.”
Key word being “me”, indicating you are doing your own tafsir, based on secondary sources, since you don’t have *any* knowledge of Arabic beyond Islamophobese. Re-read the textual context, if you know what that means. Then you will understand *why* some Muslim translators insert “marriage” into the verse and why the REAL tafsir give the interpretations they do.
“The fact is that the Bible contains the same story”
“But the fact that it exists in the Bible as well nullifies your original point that the Quranic representation of Lot is worse than the Bible.”
Whoa Whoa Whoa! The Qur’an does not contain a story of Lot(as) offering up his daughters for rape to a mob of men!!
Please read my favorite hadith below as it well describes Muslim Extremists, and Islamophobes like JahilBob
Allahu A’lam
—————–
“This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant.” (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin ‘Abd al-Rahman al-’Udhri.)
March 25th, 2011 at 9:34 am
.
March 25th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Bob claims to be oh-so-offended that the Quran says that Lot offered his daughters to be raped.
Offended? No. Never claimed to be personally offended by that particular passage in the Koran. There’s a lot of other passages which concern me far more than a mythical tale.
Lot’s offer is insincere, and his people knew it. How do we know this? Because the very next verse (which always seem to be missing from Bob’s analysis) says so:
I guess if Lot were living today, he would have said ‘JK, JK’ immediately after offering the mob his daughters.
‘Here, take my daughters. JK! JK!’
how can it be offended by the following Quranic verse:
I wonder if you realize the difference between murder and an act of God. Because the only difference from a hungry bear and annihilating entire peoples as recorded in the Koran is the order of magnitude of life that was lost.
But in your attempt to compare the two events, the differences stick out. Khidr was either a prophet or similar in stature to a one who believed it justified to kill a child not for what the child did but for what he feared the child would do. That is the bottom line. I’ll leave your hair splitting for someone else.
March 25th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
You’re not going to give up Bob, so I’m not really bothered. Everyone has made their point clear. You just don’t want to accept it. It’s cool.
“Deaf, dumb and blind” [Quran 2:18]
March 25th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
annihilating entire peoples as recorded in the Koran i
Oh the irony! Please Bob, just quit while you’re still only a few lightyears behind. Good grief, you’re a bigger imbecile than I ever imagined.
March 25th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Speaking of irony, Bob’s loony comments here are actually driving up the popularity of LoonWatch’s new articles. If you look on the ‘popular’ tab on the top right, at least 6 of those articles are there with Bob’s help.
Thanks Bob!
March 25th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
That’s why I never understood why in the past my IP and e-mail have been blocked and my posts removed.
March 25th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
At the end of the day, we do get some, ahem, interesting discussions. But you have been posting here on-and-off for a few months now. I don’t think any of us have lasted that long on Jihadwatch before getting banned by Marisol.
But of course, one does not justify the other. I guess Loonwatch moderators don’t need a war happening under every single article. Personally I don’t mind but it probably scares away other Loonwatch commenters.
March 25th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
This guy doesn’t know why he was banned? Not surprised, since he seems to be oblivious to a lot of things, including responses to his posts. Hence the reason he sounds like a broken record.
March 25th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
@Rob and Cynic
Thanks!
@rambo
“i looked at the ayah in arabic and saw the word “haqqin””
“if i were to grab a girl and try to do what i please with her, someone might say, “you have no HAQQ over her”
meaning i have to haqq over her because i am not married to her.”
I was using Yuksel’s translation, not my own. The word haqqin is sometimes translated/understood as right/justification (see 3:21). You could translate it as, “you know that we have no right to your daughters/’alimta ma lana fi banatika min haqqin”.
“but i think there is also another way to interpret the ayah which will kill your apologetic. your claim “Lot’s offer is insincere, and his people knew it””
“but it is possible that his offer was SINCERE because he became too desperate, but deep down in his heart he knew that the faggots PREFERED /DESIRED/ want batty , not woman. so it hasn’t got anything to do with insincerety ,but preference.”
Ignoring your gratuitous use of the word faggot, I think he was insincere precisely because he knew that they preferred men. I think he was desperate and was trying to by some time.
@JustBob
“Offended? No. Never claimed to be personally offended by that particular passage in the Koran. There’s a lot of other passages which concern me far more than a mythical tale.”
This is the second time that Bob has unwittingly referred to the Quran as a tale, like his predecessors:
6:25 Among them are those who listen to you; and We have made covers over their hearts to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears; and if they see every sign they will not acknowledge; even when they come to you they argue, those who reject say, “This is nothing but the tales from the past!”
Bob can’t seem to recognize a genuine tale when it’s right in front of him, like that one about Lot sleeping with his daughters. This tale serves no other function except to give an ignoble genealogy to Israel’s neighbors, the Ammonites and Moabites (who were said to have resulted from the incestuous relationship). This is why that tale isn’t in the Quran.
“I guess if Lot were living today, he would have said ‘JK, JK’ immediately after offering the mob his daughters.”
“Here, take my daughters. JK! JK!’’
Yeah, if he were living today. Or, like the comedian Henny Youngman, he could have said “take my wife, please”!
“I wonder if you realize the difference between murder and an act of God. Because the only difference from a hungry bear and annihilating entire peoples as recorded in the Koran is the order of magnitude of life that was lost.”
Sure, I realize the difference. But the Biblical verse in question isn’t talking about an “act of God”. Suppose you continue to insult my intelligence with this spiel, and I said “may the curse of Allah be on you”. Then, that very moment, two bears came out and mauled you to death. That’s not an act of God, my friend. That’s me putting the root on ya!
By the way, this is another one of those tales that Bob believes in that isn’t in the Quran.
Also, unlike the Bible, there are no tales of annihilating entire peoples in the Quran. Stop trying to change the subject!
“But in your attempt to compare the two events, the differences stick out.”
They sure do! There’s a difference in “magnitude in the life that was lost” (1 and 42). There’s also a difference between the reasons they were killed (for committing criminal transgressions and for making fun of someone’s baldness).
“I’ll leave your hair splitting for someone else.”
We’ve just begun, and you’re already taking your marbles and going home?
March 26th, 2011 at 12:27 am
You know, despite the fact I don’t like Bob or his agenda, and the topic wasn’t about Lot and his daughters, I have to say I’m somewhat aghast at the way seemingly intelligent Muslims simply accept the explanations of the tafsir as the final word, without examining critically if what they say makes sense.
So when Lot says in 11:78 “Oh my people! Here are my daughters: they are purer for you”, he means the daughters of the land? The tafsir quoted don’t actually seem to offer any arguments, let alone *valid* arguments why “my daughters” would refer to everybody else’s daughter. It makes no sense at all! If Lot was referring to other people’s daughters, then why is he saying “my” daughters?
It seems to me that if you want to argue that the *Quran* doesn’t say Lot offered his own daughters to the men of Sodom, you’d have to at least come up with a good explanation to that question. Nobody has. People just say: well the tafsir say he didn’t mean his daughters, so that’s that. Or: well, the hadith say he didn’t mean his daughters, so that’s that.
Has anyone considered the thought that the tafsir and the hadith may be wrong on this issue? What is wrong with you people? Do you put your critical faculties on hold, every time religious dogma gets in the way of reason? Isn’t is pretty obvious the tafsir make up this explanation for apologetic reasons, because they find it unbecoming for a prophet like Lot to offer his daughters to the men to be sexually abused?
Furthermore, the biblical stories are about a thousand years prior to the Quran. Muhammad heard them from Jews. And don’t give me that ‘Yeah but they changed the stories and God told Muhammad the true version’ because first of all, that’s far to convenient (it puts you in the right every time, now doesn’t it), and second of all: there’s not a shred of evidence that’s true. There’s not a shred of evidence God told Muhammad anything, let alone the particulars of biblical stories, and there’s not a shred of evidence Jews changed their scriptures. For crying out loud: Christians accepted these scriptures, and they didn’t detect any changes.
Do you know how Jews transmitted their scriptures? They’d copy the roll letter for letter, and if any mistake was found, they’d burn the roll and start all over again. They have checked the Biblica Stuttgartensia from the eleventh century against the Dead Sea Rolls: there were no discrepancies.
It’s not hard to fathom why the story of Lot committing incest is not in the Quran.
First of all, it’s not relevant to the point being made. It’s pretty obvious to anyone who is familiar with the biblical stories that the Quran takes these stories as given and expects the readers to know them beforehand, only to refer to certain events to draw out moral lessons.
Secondly, Lot is considered a prophet in Islam, so it’s not all that convenient for the Quran to accuse him of incest.
However, in the bible he is portrayed as an anti-hero to Abraham. In Genesis 13 Lot chooses to try and succeed by relying on the world he can see, by dwelling in the fertile lands around Sodom and Gomorrah, even though the people there are wicked, whereas Abraham is left with the arid parts of the land. Lot chooses the world, whereas Abraham has to rely on faith. The moral of the outcome of the story, with Lot being destitute and committing incest with his own daughters, and Abraham becoming the father of a multitude of progeny, is that in the end, even through hardship, trials and tribulation, faith lasts longer, whereas relying on ones own insight and efforts to succeed in the world, will end in destitution and ruin.
Furthermore, the names of the sons of Lot, Ammon and Moab, are two historical enemies of Israel. Saying they were begotten by incest was taking a verbal jab at them. This is a recurring motif in the Old Testament. Notice how Esaw, who is rejected by God even though he is the first born and a great hunter, is portrayed both as a rube and the forefather of Edom, a people the Israelites had many altercations with.
March 26th, 2011 at 12:48 am
Has anyone considered the thought that the tafsir and the hadith may be wrong on this issue?
Why the hell would a Muslim think that Jack? I think you’re failing to understand that to a Muslim, the Hadith and tafsir are the final word on the issue. Any attempt to deny that would be tantamount to interpreting Muslims’ religion for them. Which ironically, is the MO of most Islamophobes; including JustatrollBob.
March 26th, 2011 at 1:57 am
The problem is Jack, is that Bob was saying that “Islam” (by which he means the Islamic interpretive tradition, obviously) portrays the story as X, when it actually portrays it as Y. The issue is not what individual Muslims may or may not believe, or even how the story found its way into the Qur’an etc. (that is an issue of academic interest, to be sure), but an issue of what mainstream Muslim scholarship says about the story of Lot. If you make a claim that “Islam” states X, then it is dealing with religious scholarship not the masses, so it is to the books we need to turn for clarification.
One of the key methods of doing Qur’anic exegesis is known as “al-tafsir bi al-ma’thur”, which is exegesis from inter-textual understanding. Basically, this method (which is the main method used in Islamic scholarship) understands specific Qur’anic verses in reference to others on the same topic, or from other recorded sources such as Prophetic narrations (i.e. hadith), or narrations from Muhammad’s companions and other early luminaries. In this case, the same story is repeated in 11:78, so exegesis discusses the issue in both places. It’s not dissimilar to how the Jewish exegetical tradition understands their scripture with reference to the Talmud and the collective opinions of countless luminaries from their long-inherited intellectual tradition.
Even the earliest authorities in Qur’anic exegesis, including the likes of al-Tabari (d. circa 930CE) who is known for collecting variant opinions on issues, makes clear that it refers to the “daughters of the nation” and not his physical daughters. He also supports this with a number of narrations from the earliest sources, which later authorities transmit and record on his authority.
He cites a very interesting quote from Mujahid ibn Jabr (d. 722CE), who was considered the inheritor of Ibn ‘Abbas (d. 687CE) knowledge in Qur’anic exegesis (Ibn ‘Abbas being the cousin of Muhammad and considered by Muhammad’s companions to be the pre-eminent exponent of Qur’anic exegesis). He basically states that “It was not his actual daughters, although they are from his nation (umma); and every Prophet is the father of his nation (umma).” [قال: لـم يكن بناته، ولكن كن من أمته، وكلّ نبـيّ أبو أمته.] He also records another narration from Mujahid on the topic, noting that “His command was for them to marry women, not to offer them fornication.” [قال: أمرهم أن يتزوّجوا النساء، لـم يعرض علـيهم سفـاحاً]. Interestingly, the last word (سفـاحاً) also refers to bloodshed as well.
In other early sources, we find similar sentiments. The tafsir of al-Hawari (d. circa 923CE), for example again quotes Mujahid as an authority, noting that he said “Every Prophet is the father of his nation; this means, rather, that ‘his daughters’ are the women of his nation” [كل نبي أبو أمته، وإنما عنى ببناته نساء أمته]
From what I can see, this is where the twin-strands of exegesis on this issue appear most clearly, namely that 1) it was not Lot’s physical daughters meant here, and 2) he commanded them to marry and turn away from their debauchery.
As I said, the issue of the Qur’ans reproduction of the story and its relationship to Biblical versions and so forth are definitely interesting, but entirely different from claiming that “Islam” says X, when its interpretive tradition clearly says Y, continuing to do so even today. Modern tafsirs such as that of al-Qattan (d. 1984), Ibn ‘Ashur (d. 1973), al-Sha’rawi (d. 1998) and others, for example, all state the same thing.
March 26th, 2011 at 2:40 am
“Why the hell would a Muslim think that Jack?”
Maybe… because you’re a thinking, rational human being, who uses their critical faculties?
“I think you’re failing to understand that to a Muslim, the Hadith and tafsir are the final word on the issue. Any attempt to deny that would be tantamount to interpreting Muslims’ religion for them.”
Or an attempt to get you to critically examine the dogmatic framework you inherited from your faith tradition.
Secondly, at the very least, an attempt at staying true to myself. See, for a Muslim thinking within the dogmatic framework of traditional Islam, the hadith and the tafsir may be the final word on what the Quran actually says. But for me, as a non-Muslim, neither the hadith or the tafsir hold any special authority in and out of itself.
So if you want to convince me that the Quran actually means not-X when it says X, you’re going to have to come up with some evidence which would be universally accepted, not ‘evidence’ that is solely faith-based.
How does the fact that a commentary – or a bunch of commentaries drawing upon one another – says the verse should interpretet in a certain way settle the matter. How is that an argument? It’s not in any way with respect to content.
I want to see a semantic argument which shows that ‘my sons’ or ‘my daughters’ actually means: ‘men in general’ or ‘women in general’ in Arabic and preferably in the parlance of the Quran. And if you come up with a hadith, then I’d like to see some pretty solid evidence that Muhammad himself said, when asked: You know, when I said that Lot said “My daughters”, I actually meant the “daughters of the land”. Although I’m not sure in what sense Muhammad’s opinion would weigh in on the matter, since everything he recited is supposed to come straight from God, so it’s not impossible the recitation revealed the prophet Lot did something Muhammad thought was too unbecoming of a prophet.
But anyway, I have a hard time believing any of this, because we know Muhammad learnt the biblical stories from Jews and Christians, and we pretty much know what they are, because the bible tells us what they are (althoug the Quran contains some references to stories Christians regard as apocryphal, but even those can be traced). The bible clearly tells us Lot offered his own daughters. Sura 11:78 clearly echoes that when it says: “Here are my daughters: they are purer for you”, and it’s easy to understand how later generations thought it unbecoming for a prophet like Lot to offer his own daughters as sexual treats, so they invented hadiths which altered the meaning, and tafsir drew on them.
This is a perfectly coherent, logical explanation of the verse. If you want to contest it, you’d better come up with some solid evidence that “my daughters” is often used to mean “any women walking around” in a sexual context. But I think it would make for a lot of awkward misunderstandings, when prospective father in laws tell suitors: “Sure, you’re free to ask for the hand of any of my daughters”, when in fact they mean “You’re free to ask for the hand of anybody else’s daughters, but not mine!”
March 26th, 2011 at 2:49 am
Dawood: “The problem is Jack, is that Bob was saying that “Islam” (by which he means the Islamic interpretive tradition, obviously) portrays the story as X, when it actually portrays it as Y.”
Ah! Okay, that actually does clear the matter up.
But in Bob’s defense, one might assume that in his mind the Quran and ‘Islam’ is probably the same. And, certainly if Bob has a protestant background, upon hearing claims that the Quran is the Word of God and the final authority, he’d assume that the Quran, like the protestant Bible, should take precedent over the interpretative authority that follows it.
But the more I learn about Islam, the more I start thinking that Muslims are like traditional Roman Catholics when it comes to the interpretation of the bible. So when the gospels talk about Jesus’ brothers, they go out of their way to argue why that very well could mean his nephews or something along those lines, since they decided that May never slept with Joseph because the sex thing would somehow stain her with sinfulness.
March 26th, 2011 at 3:28 am
The whole issue was brought up by Bob to show that the Qur’an is “just as bad” as the Bible regarding Lot, when he couldn’t admit that Biblical passages referred to above are far worse than anything the Qur’an contains, even at a surface level.
This is, at least as I understand it, is the point Danios was trying to make. No doubt the interpretive traditions in each respected religion deal with such passages in specific ways, but if Christianity and Judaism are “allowed” to do this regarding the above, then why is it no one accepts Muslims doing the same from within their own religious tradition? The Lot issue is a case in point. If we read the Qur’an literally, it literally says “his daughters”, but when we look at exegesis, they take the term non-literally, for whatever reason they deem strongest compared to the literal meaning. Scripture is not always literal anyway, such is the nature of language, especially high-level language.
The issue too, is that Muhammad did not speak on every single verse found in the text, at least as recorded in the hadith; but when Mujahid speaks on tafsir, it’s understood that he does so on the authority of his knowledge from Ibn ‘Abbas, a prominent companion and Muhammad’s cousin. As I mentioned, he is seen as the pre-eminent authority from the Sahaba in exegesis.
Other authorities such as al-Baghawi (d. 1122) and al-Suyuti (d. 1505) relate this designation of “his daughters” as meaning “daughters of his nation” to a specific Qur’anic verse, 33:6. In it we find the statement “The Prophet is more protective towards the believers than they are themselves, while his wives are their mothers.” [النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَىٰ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَأَزْوَاجُهُ أُمَّهَاتُهُمْ]. Muhammad Asad gives a good explanation for this statement, noting that
—-
[T]his verse points to the highest manifestation of an elective, spiritual relationship: that of the God-inspired Prophet and the person who freely chooses to follow him. The Prophet himself is reported to have said: “None of you has real faith unless I am dearer unto him than his father, and his child, and all mankind” (Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of Anas, with several almost identical versions in other compilations). The Companions invariably regarded the Prophet as the spiritual father of his community. Some of them – e.g., Ibn Mas’ud (as quoted by Zamakhshari) or Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Ibn Abbas and Mu’awiyah (as quoted by Ibn Kathir) – hardly ever recited the above verse without adding, by way of explanation, “seeing that he is [as] a father to them”; and many of the tabi’in — including Mujahid, Qatadah, lkrimah and Al-Hasan (cf. Tabari and Ibn Kathir) – did the same: hence my interpolation, between brackets, of this phrase.
—-
March 26th, 2011 at 4:29 am
@ Jack
It’s isn’t really about what the Qur’an says in black and white; but rather how it is (and was) interpreted Muslims. That is what’s most relevant to the discussion (if you can call it that) brought to the table by Bob.
See, for a Muslim thinking within the dogmatic framework of traditional Islam, the hadith and the tafsir may be the final word on what the Quran actually says. But for me, as a non-Muslim, neither the hadith or the tafsir hold any special authority in and out of itself.
This is exactly my point Jack. Bob here is trying to interpret Islam for Muslims…when all other interpretations point to the opposite of his own little tafsir. Islamic tradition is fairly unanimous in its interpretation on this issue, and it is absurd to point out that Muslims believe X (based on a personal interpretation of a certain passage), when Muslims actually believe the opposite. I hope you can see the point I’m trying to make, and that Dawood made much more consisely before me.
March 26th, 2011 at 4:43 am
The tafsirs help to know how the verse was interpreted/understood for 1400yrs by muslim scholarship.
Now the verse could either mean his personal daughters or daughters of his nation. I dont think theres absolute proof for either opinion within the Quran itself. Islamic scholarship from Prophets(pbuh) companions onwards cite the latter opinion. Thats enough proof for muslims. But i dont see much of a case even if the other opinion is supposed.
For the context shows it was about making them understand in his desperation & frustration; rather than just throwing away his daughter to a gay mob, as jihad bob unconsciously self projects himself.
Quran 11:
(77. And when Our messengers came to Lut, he was GRIEVED on account of them and was CONCERNED for them. He said: “This is a DISTRESSFUL day.”) (78. And his people came rushing towards him, and since aforetime they used to commit crimes, he said: “O my people! Here are my daughters, they are purer for you. So have Taqwa of Allah and disgrace me not with regard to my guests! IS THERE NOT AMONG YOU A SINGLE RIGHT-MINDED MAN”)
The mob themselves are aware that Lot(as) very well knows that they don’t want his daughters.
(79. They said: “Surely, you know that we have no need of your daughters, and indeed you know well what we want!”)
Why would Lot(as) offer his daughter to a people who dont want his daughter in the first place ? If the gaymob themselves understood Lot(as), why is jihadbob concerned ?
March 26th, 2011 at 7:02 am
So, you’re saying that when a drunk enters a bar and demands a glass of beer or whiskey, and the bartender says to him: ‘Sir, you’ve really had enough to drink. Can I offer you something else instead? A glass of tonic, perhaps? Fresh orange juice?’ And the drunk replies: ‘Surely, you know that I have no need of your fizzes and juices, and indeed you know damn well what I want!’, the bartender is insincere in his offer?
I’would take ‘You know well what we want, namely X’ not to be an evaluative statement of Lot’s state of knowledge, but a prescriptive act, as in: ‘Don’t beat around the bush, old man. Just give us what we came for’, in other words, not just a decline of the offer, but a bid to stop the bartering.
March 26th, 2011 at 8:39 am
By the way, I really ought to commend Dawood again for his elucidating and informative comments. You certainly know your stuff.
I’d like to urge you to copy your responses to word files in a folder on your desktop, and format the material into a booklet on Islamic theology.
In a few years from now, when coming across the same questions for the fifth time, you’d wished you’d saved everything.
March 26th, 2011 at 8:43 am
No. The analogy is not correct i would say. For the bartender was instead yet offering what the drunk person did NOT have.
While in the case of Lot(as), the mob already had women and wives. They would least be bothered with Lot(as)’s. But Lot(as) by way of mentioning his daughters is directing them to go to the women which is pure for them and to fear God( for absolute morality requires God).
All of this is concerned only if there is some rational logic that a line should be favourable from every possible interpretative angle. I dont think there is. Its a purely speculative polemic. And jihadbob swimming in it is because of the disease mentioned in Quran 3:7.
March 26th, 2011 at 10:22 am
I agree with Jack (minus the atheist dogma that we touched on in a previous thread, of course). I think Lot is referring to his daughters in particular and not daughters in general. I think the reason contemporary Muslims prefer the traditional interpretation is for theological, not linguistic reasons. Sunni and Shia developed a belief over time that the prophets were sinless. Even though the Quran relates the foibles of the prophets (like Moses murdering the Egyptian, for example). Muhammad’s foibles are also sprinkled throughout the Quran. Muhammad and the previous prophets said concerning their humanity:
41:6 Say, “I am no more than a human being like you. I am inspired that your god is One god, therefore you shall be upright towards Him and seek His forgiveness. Woe to those who set up partners.”
18:110 Say, “I am but a human being like you, being inspired that your god is One god. So whoever looks forward to meeting his Lord, then let him do good works and not set up any partner in the service of his Lord.”
14:11 Their messengers said, “We are but humans like you, but God will bestow His grace upon whom He pleases from His servants. It is not up to us to bring you an authorization except by God’s leave. In God those who acknowledge should place their trust”
Ironically, the disbelievers tried to use their humanity and their foibles against them (by comparing the fallible prophets of history to the infallible beings of mythology like Jesus, Buddha, various secular “heroes”, etc):
11:27 The leaders who rejected from amongst his people said, “We do not see you except as a human like us, and we see that only the lowest amongst our people with shallow opinion have followed you. We do not see anything that makes you better than us; in fact, we think you are liars.”
23:24 But the leaders who rejected from among his people said, “What is this but a human like you? He wants to make himself better than you! If it was indeed God’s will, He would have sent down angels. We did not hear such a thing among our fathers of old.”
23:33 The leaders from amongst his people who rejected and denied the meeting of the Hereafter; and We indulged them in this worldly life; said, “What is this but a human like you? He eats from what you eat and he drinks from what you drink.”
Needless to say, the Jesus, Buddha and secular heroes of history don’t measure up to the Jesus, Buddha and secular heroes of mythology either.
“So, you’re saying that when a drunk enters a bar and demands a glass of beer or whiskey, and the bartender says to him: ‘Sir, you’ve really had enough to drink. Can I offer you something else instead? A glass of tonic, perhaps? Fresh orange juice?’ And the drunk replies: ‘Surely, you know that I have no need of your fizzes and juices, and indeed you know damn well what I want!’, the bartender is insincere in his offer?”
That’s a poor analogy, Jack. Lot’s offer was insincere, first, because both knew that they preferred men, second, because Lot’s daughters were engaged (making them off limits to them). Hence, their response:
“you know that we have no right to your daughters/’alimta ma lana fi banatika min haqqin”.
As I pointed out to Rambo in my post yesterday (which will remain in moderation for God knows how long), the word haqqin usually means right or justification (see 3:21).
“I’would take ‘You know well what we want, namely X’ not to be an evaluative statement of Lot’s state of knowledge, but a prescriptive act, as in: ‘Don’t beat around the bush, old man. Just give us what we came for’, in other words, not just a decline of the offer, but a bid to stop the bartering.
I think a more apt parallel would be the comedian Henny Youngman’s famous one-liner, “take my wife, please”! Nobody thought Henny was sincere.
March 26th, 2011 at 11:27 am
As-salamu alaykum,
Among the homosexual mob who attacked the Prophet Lot (peace be on him) there may have been unmarried young men and so Lot may have primarily meant that he will be happy to marry his several daughters to several yet unmarried men from the town. It is then inferred from this proposal that all of the homosexual townsmen must quit their wicked ways and try to satisfy themselves with women instead of men.
Oh, if he offered his own daughters his offer was obviously that each of the daughters would marry one townsmen. So, as a natural consequence the other townsmen would have to follow suit and turn to women instead of men. To interpret his offer as an offer of a sexual treat, one needs either to be either a desperate, fantasizing Biblical scribe of bad morals who altered the Biblical text that he was writing or else to be an unfortunate follower of such a scribe. How sad for them.
March 26th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Jack, that pretty much summed my feelings of this verse up as well.
Muslims must explain what they do when scholars contradict each other on certain passages.
Also, I’m used to debating Muslims (Ahmadi) who reject the traditionalist understanding of the Koran Dawood and Cynic rely on and actually use it against Christians and Jews (the Koran is superior because Muslims do not need theologians/priests to interpret their holy book for them – the Koran is ‘clear’ and ‘complete’).
Strangely, I never heard anyone call the Muslim a ‘Christianophobe’ for this line of argumentation, yet anyone who interprets the Koran without scholarly guidance is an Islamophobe.
The mind boggles!
March 26th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
*sigh* why am I doing this… I suspect my lack of effort and caring will show in my response but whatever, it’s 5:40AM and I’m not going to get to sleep so may as well. What I really should do is write a bit about interpreting the Qu’ran etc, expect a) you wouldn’t read it and b) someone already has. Thus no point. Anyway…
“Jack, that pretty much summed my feelings of this verse up as well.”
If you read it carefully, it’s actually not a good thing, in my opinion it is saying how foolish you are.
“Muslims must explain what they do when scholars contradict each other on certain passages.”
You judge the scholar based on their credentials. E.g. bob = no credentials, thus ignored.
“Also, I’m used to debating Muslims (Ahmadi) who reject the traditionalist understanding of the Koran Dawood and Cynic rely on and actually use it against Christians and Jews (the Koran is superior because Muslims do not need theologians/priests to interpret their holy book for them – the Koran is ‘clear’ and ‘complete’).”
I doubt you debate them but anyway… one of the reasons the view held by Ahmadi are classed as rejected is precisely that, they ignore normal teachings.
“Strangely, I never heard anyone call the Muslim a ‘Christianophobe’ for this line of argumentation, yet anyone who interprets the Koran without scholarly guidance is an Islamophobe.”
The phrase ‘Islamaphobe’ isn’t about that but you know that already. While interpreting the Qu’ran without ‘scholarly guidance’ normally doesn’t lead to someone being a prat but it can, then you get ‘Islamaphobia’. Put simply, very rarely does someone read the Qu’ran and end up with a reading like Bin Ladan. Such people that do are either doing it on purpose or somehow lacking.
“The mind boggles!”
Wonder why.
March 26th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Jack, disagree with you that Ahmadi views are not normal. They sounded very normal to me.
How are you able to interpret the Koran if two scholars of similar credentials both disagree with each other?
What if at one point there was a consensus on the meaning of a certain verse but the interpretation changed?
Don’t you see the problem with believing the word of man more than what Allah clearly writes in the Koran?
But at least we agree that a tafsir must make sense before that interpretation should be believed. Blindly accepting what someone thinks without critically evaluating the verse for yourself seems like a dangerous road to follow.
March 26th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
“But at least we agree that a tafsir must make sense before that interpretation should be believed. Blindly accepting what someone thinks without critically evaluating the verse for yourself seems like a dangerous road to follow.”
That’s what I did. But you mocked me. For you it’s easier to dismiss the word of God as a “mythical tale” but that to me seems less logical than actually interpreting the verse in question.
“Jack, disagree with you that Ahmadi views are not normal. They sounded very normal to me.”
No one was saying that their views are abnormal, just that they have rejected traditional/normal understanding of the Quran. And if that is where you’re getting your idea that Tafsir, Hadith are irrelevant when discussing the Quran then understand that I and most others here are not Ahmadi so there’s no point whining about that.
As for your rant about contradictions etc, then please inform me of a Tafsir where the scholar believes that Lot handed his daughters over to be raped. There are Christian commentaries that say this though, as I mentioned above on this thread.
March 26th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“Jack, disagree with you that Ahmadi views are not normal. They sounded very normal to me.”
Of course they did, 90% of their stuff is ‘normal’, however they go against most Muslims in that 10% in a huge way, number one being they demand that the Mehadi has already come. One of the tow Ahmadi sects also claims that Mohamed wasn’t the last Prophet and that their founder was a Prophet, this again is an issue.
“How are you able to interpret the Koran if two scholars of similar credentials both disagree with each other?
What if at one point there was a consensus on the meaning of a certain verse but the interpretation changed?”
It doesn’t happen, all that Scholars disagree with is the way they get their ideas from, this is in effect the whole basis of the 4 Schools. As the Qu’ran states, it is easy to understand and that’s why they get to the same place with it.
“Don’t you see the problem with believing the word of man more than what Allah clearly writes in the Koran?”
I don’t believe what man says more becuase man simply agrees with what is written and explains it. You deliberately misunderstand the whole concept.
“But at least we agree that a tafsir must make sense before that interpretation should be believed. Blindly accepting what someone thinks without critically evaluating the verse for yourself seems like a dangerous road to follow.”
Correct, and that is what Muslims do, as I said you never take the word of a person just because they say it.
None of what you state is really relevant, all you are doing is trying to make it seem as if your false view of a certain verse is correct. Clearly it is not, just accept that and we can move on.
March 26th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
“Also, I’m used to debating Muslims (Ahmadi) who reject the traditionalist understanding of the Koran(that)Dawood and Cynic rely on and actually use it against Christians and Jews (the Koran is superior because Muslims do not need theologians/priests to interpret their holy book for them – the Koran is ‘clear’ and ‘complete’).”
Ya Allah!! Surprise surprise, the Jahil is now misrepresenting the Ahmadiyya. Not only that, he extends his false understanding to make it seem that the Ahmadiyya reject use of Tafsir and Hadith as a method of interpreting Qur’an.
I have 5 physical Qur’ans, besides the 20 or so on my computer(i gave one away to an Atheist classmate who said he loved the Qur’an). 3 translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali(One in English translation only. Two with English translation, transliteration and Arabic text side by side, for recitation purposes). 1 translated by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan,an Indian Muslim, which is just English text. And lastly, my first Qur’an with English translation, Arabic text, and *tafsir* as footnotes by Maulana Muhammad Ali, an Ahmadi Muslim. He makes extensive use of Hadith, other mufassir, premodern and modern, and Islamic and Arabic Dictionaries, so this idea that Ahmadiyya disregard hadith and tafsir when seeking to understand Qur’an is false. And Maulani Muhammad Ali is not only respected by myself, but in the Ahmadi Muslim community as well. I highly doubt that jahilBob knows any Muslims in person, so these Ahmadiyya he refers to are probalbly just trolls projecting an Ahmadi identity.
Allahu A’lam
—————
“This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant.” (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin ‘Abd al-Rahman al-’Udhri.)
March 27th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Could anyone be so kind as to tell me what the medieval commentators wrote of The Flood and Noah’s Ark?
I seem to have read that Tabari believed the entire world was flooded based on what is said in the Koran, but Muslims today tend to interpret the Koran that the The Flood was a regional catastrophe.
Clearly, if Jack is correct, medieval commentators will agree with modern ones regarding Noah and the flood.
March 28th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
@JustBob
“Could anyone be so kind as to tell me what the medieval commentators wrote of The Flood and Noah’s Ark?”
Uh, what the hell does the flood and Noah’s Ark have to do with Danio’s article? When you couldn’t quibble with his article, you tried to change the subject to Lot’s daughters. When you couldn’t defend your interpretation of the Quran regarding Lot’s daughters, you try to change the subject to the flood and Noah’s Ark?
“I seem to have read that Tabari believed the entire world was flooded based on what is said in the Koran, but Muslims today tend to interpret the Koran that the The Flood was a regional catastrophe.”
“Clearly, if Jack is correct, medieval commentators will agree with modern ones regarding Noah and the flood.”
Now I see what Muhammad was talking about. Critics of Islam seem to be following some type of script. One of them subjected me to the same “Noah and the flood” polemic in the past:
http://www.amazon.com/tag/islam/forum/ref=cm_cd_search_res_rm?_encoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=197&cdPage=8&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1I0QYWRM7ITLV&cdMsgID=Mx53FNWTP5W84B#Mx53FNWTP5W84B
March 29th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
No one (sane and intellegent) claims that the bible was written by G_d only inspired by him. You people claim your book was written by G_d. Our book was written a cultural context. If what you say is true, yours should be perfect, eternal and everlasting. There can be no comparison and it is foolish to try.
March 29th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
JahilBob,
“Also, I’m used to debating Muslims (Ahmadi) who reject the traditionalist understanding of the Koran Dawood and Cynic rely on and actually use it against Christians and Jews (the Koran is superior because Muslims do not need theologians/priests to interpret their holy book for them – the Koran is ‘clear’ and ‘complete’).”
You are a master of disinformation and distortion. Ahmadiyya Muslims don’t rely on tafsir and hadith? rejecting “traditionalist understanding of Koran”(whatever you mean by that) is markedly different from the intentionally deceptive comment, “the Koran is superior because Muslims do not need theologians/priests to interpret their holy book for them – the Koran is ‘clear’ and ‘complete’.
The very first Qur’an I owned in hard copy was translated by Maulana Muhammad Ali, and Ahmadi. He included in his translation, *gasp* his own tafsir. He included in his tafsir *gasp* extensive references to the Hadith and the works of other mufassir, besides referring to their tafsir.
Allahu A’lam
————–
“This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant.” (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin ‘Abd al-Rahman al-’Udhri.)
March 29th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
I’m sorry, but why has Noah and his Ark come up? How is it relevant to the current topic what one person said X years ago to what is said now? Is the story of Noah relevant in any real way or is it philosophy that different people take different meanings from? It’s philosophy and nothing more.
And it’s just part of the training Michael…